State v. Ward
2017 Ohio 933
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Redrick J. Ward pleaded guilty to having a weapon while under disability in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-594143 and later (while awaiting sentencing) negotiated a plea in CR-15-597429 and pleaded guilty to burglary.
- Ward filed a pro se one-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea in CR-15-594143, alleging the terms were not as agreed but giving no detail or factual support.
- The trial court did not issue a separate ruling on the written motion but proceeded to a combined sentencing hearing and imposed consecutive terms (3 years for the disability count and 1 year for burglary).
- At the sentencing hearing the court acknowledged the pro se motion, told Ward to consult counsel about grounds for withdrawal, and Ward made no further effort to pursue the motion — the court treated the motion as abandoned.
- Ward appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by denying a fair hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (2) the record does not clearly and convincingly support the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying Ward’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Court: motion lacked facial merit and Ward abandoned it after being told to consult counsel | Ward: court failed to give a fair and impartial hearing on his motion | Court: No abuse — motion was conclusory, lacked factual support, and Ward abandoned it after consultation opportunity |
| Whether a represented defendant may file a pro se motion to withdraw a plea without counsel’s concurrence | State: a pro se motion is improper when defendant is represented by counsel | Ward: defendant retains right to control his plea and may act contrary to counsel’s advice (Faretta/self-representation principles) | Court: expressed reservations about barring all pro se filings but found no record that counsel thwarted Ward’s control; issue moot here |
| Whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: judge made permissible findings supported by record (dangerousness due to mental disability and PCP intoxication) | Ward: findings (course of conduct and unusual harm) unsupported; weapons-under-disability harm not unusual | Court: Affirmed — standard of review is highly deferential and record supports judge’s finding of an "incredibly dangerous" situation given mental illness + PCP intoxication |
| Whether the court’s failure to make one statutory finding on the record (sentencing hearing) fatally undermines consecutive sentence justification | State relied also on a written entry finding offense occurred while awaiting sentencing | Ward: Bonnell requires findings on the record at sentencing | Court: Noted the written finding cannot substitute for an on-the-record finding per Bonnell, but other supported findings suffice; overall consecutive sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- State v. Martin, 816 N.E.2d 227 (Ohio 2004) (defendant may proceed pro se or with counsel but not both simultaneously)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry)
- State v. Raber, 982 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio 2012) (presumption of regularity on a silent record)