State v. Voegeli
2021 Ohio 3887
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On Jan. 22, 2019 appellant William Voegeli brandished a handgun at a Dollar General employee and took cash; he was indicted for aggravated robbery and later pleaded guilty to an amended count of robbery (second-degree), receiving a six-year prison term concurrent with a sentence in a separate Red Roof Inn robbery case.
- Appellant filed post-conviction motions and a counseled Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the Dollar General case, asserting actual-innocence theories supported by two handwritten witness statements and texts from a police officer to appellant’s sister.
- At the Feb. 5, 2021 evidentiary hearing one declarant (John Doe) testified but gave equivocal/admissions undermining his written statement; the other key declarant (James Roe) failed to appear despite subpoena.
- Appellant testified claiming innocence and that trial counsel pressured him into pleading guilty; cross-examination established he admitted the Red Roof Inn robbery and acknowledged the plea-hearing transcript complied with Crim.R. 11.
- The trial court overruled the motion to withdraw the plea, finding appellant failed to show manifest injustice or present substantiated evidence of a defense; appellant appealed, arguing the court limited his testimony and prejudged the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Voegeli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting appellant's testimony and prejudging the Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The court gave a full, impartial hearing; appellant failed to prove manifest injustice or offer corroborated evidence of actual innocence; denial was within discretion | The hearing improperly limited testimony on material issues and the judge showed bias/prejudgment, denying a full and fair hearing | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion: hearing was complete and impartial, appellant's claims were unsubstantiated and key witness did not appear; denial appropriate under manifest-injustice standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio 1985) (appellate review of a Crim.R. 32.1 denial is for abuse of discretion)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 559 N.E.2d 1301 (Ohio 1990) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court under abuse-of-discretion review)
- Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980) (identifies factors for evaluating plea-withdrawal motions and hearing fairness)
- Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea post-sentence)
- Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995) (additional factors for evaluating motions to withdraw pleas and scope of hearing)
- Bennett, 192 Ohio App.3d 608, 949 N.E.2d 1064 (2d Dist. 2011) (trial court must provide a complete and impartial hearing; substantiated allegations merit greater scrutiny)