State v. Walcot, 2013 Ohio 4041

Robert Walcot was indicted on 15 counts (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, importuning, and dissemination harmful to juveniles) involving two stepdaughters under 13 for offenses from 2002–2005; multiple specifications originally attached.
Trial began November 27, 2012; after jury selection and the State’s opening, Walcot accepted a plea to two amended rape counts (no specifications) and the remaining counts were nolled.
At the plea hearing the court complied with Crim.R. 11, advised Walcot of rights, and Walcot expressly denied any coercion and confirmed he did not wish to withdraw the plea at that time.
Two weeks before sentencing Walcot filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion by counsel and family, innocence, and insufficient time to consider the plea.
The trial court held a full hearing, heard from Walcot, defense counsel, Walcot’s mother, and the prosecutor, and denied the motion as a delay tactic given (among other things) jury selection and the State’s strong evidence.
Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the presentence motion to withdraw the plea and imposed an 18-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Walcot’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea	State argued denial proper because plea was knowing, voluntary, counsel competent, full Crim.R.11 and withdrawal hearings occurred, and permitting withdrawal would prejudice the State and victims	Walcot argued plea was coerced (by counsel and mother), he maintained innocence, lacked time to consider plea, and withdrawal would not prejudice the State	Court held no abuse of discretion: plea was voluntary, counsel competent, full hearings held, withdrawal would prejudice State (jury already empaneled), and claimed coercion was unsupported

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (holding pre-sentence motions to withdraw pleas require a hearing and are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Tull, 168 Ohio App.3d 54 (discussing factors for reviewing denial of pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (listing factors trial courts should consider in plea-withdrawal requests)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (identifying additional factors courts weigh on pre-sentence withdrawal motions)
State v. Drake, 73 Ohio App.3d 640 (explaining that a mere change of heart about a plea or sentence is insufficient to justify withdrawal)