State v. Smith
2022 Ohio 742
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Rodney D. Smith Jr. pleaded guilty in multiple Hancock County cases (2015, 2017, 2018) and received intervention in lieu of conviction in the 2015 case but later admitted multiple probation violations.
- While unresolved sentences remained, Smith was indicted in 2020 on two counts of aggravated trafficking (later both amended to fourth-degree felonies) and entered negotiated guilty pleas on October 5, 2020.
- On November 9, 2020, at a combined sentencing/probation-violation hearing (after admissions to community-control violations in the earlier cases), Smith orally moved to withdraw his 2020 guilty pleas, asserting he misunderstood the plea scope; the State did not oppose the oral motion.
- The trial court allowed a supplemental written presentence withdrawal motion, received it, then denied both the oral and written motions on December 30, 2020; Smith was later sentenced to an aggregate 51-month prison term across the consolidated cases.
- Smith appealed; appellate court dismissed the appeals relating to the 2015, 2017, and 2018 cases (no challenge was raised to those pleas) and reviewed only the 2020 case, affirming the trial court’s denial of the plea-withdrawal request under the Crim.R. 32.1 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his 2020 guilty pleas | The State argued no reversible error; trial court properly evaluated the motion under applicable standards | Smith argued he misunderstood the plea agreement scope (that the State would only "argue" probation rather than request prison) and sought pre-sentence withdrawal; motion was unopposed | Court held no abuse of discretion: denial affirmed under the presentence-withdrawal factors |
| Whether the motion was pre- or post-sentence and impact on standard | Court/State treated the timing as post-sentence in the record but evaluated under both standards | Smith accepted presentence treatment on appeal and challenged trial court’s factor analysis | Court found Smith waived any challenge to the court’s construction and proceeded under presentence factors; ruling stands |
| Prejudice to the State (Factor 1) | State did not claim prejudice (no missing witnesses or speedy-trial concerns) | Smith argued lack of prejudice supported withdrawal | Court: this factor favored Smith but was not dispositive |
| Counsel performance / Crim.R. 11 colloquy / defendant’s understanding (Factors 2,3,8) | State: counsel adequately represented Smith; Crim.R. 11 colloquy was thorough; Smith understood charges and penalties | Smith claimed counsel characterized plea change as a "slight difference" and that he, as a layperson, misunderstood sentencing advocacy | Court held record (colloquy and counsel representation) weighed against withdrawal; Smith had knowingly waived rights and understood consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (trial court should freely grant presentence plea-withdrawal motions only if defendant shows a reasonable and legitimate basis)
- State v. Spivey, 81 Ohio St.3d 405 (Ohio 1998) (same framework for evaluating presentence withdrawal; hearing required to assess basis)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (post-sentence withdrawal allowed only to correct a manifest injustice)
- State v. Azeen, 170 N.E.3d 1127 (Ohio 2021) (necessity of placing plea-agreement terms on the record per Crim.R. 11(F))
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)