State v. Westley
2012 Ohio 3571
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Westley was charged with murder, weapon under disability, and concealed weapon; the murder count had firearm specs.
- Westley pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter with firearm specifications; other weapon counts were nolled.
- Plea complied with Crim.R. 11 during the plea colloquy; sentencing was set for November 8, 2011.
- Before sentencing, Westley filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea to proceed to trial.
- Trial court denied the motion after a full hearing; Westley was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
- Westley appealed, challenging the denial of his presentence motion to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying withdrawal of plea | Westley argued innocence and coercion; error in denying withdrawal. | State contends no abuse; change of heart alone insufficient. | No abuse; withdrawal denied proper under Xie and related cases. |
| Whether the claim of innocence required persistent scrutiny of coercion | Westley asserts coercion by family and counsel invalidated knowingness. | State argues record shows no coercion beyond unilateral claim. | Record supports trial court's finding of no valid coercion; not a basis to withdraw. |
| Whether post-plea pro se brief was properly considered | Westley asserts rights to hybrid representation; pro se brief should be considered. | Counsel filed briefs; no leave to file supplemental pro se brief invalidates argument. | Pro se issues not considered due to lack of leave; affirmed judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (establishes factors for pre-sentence withdrawal scrutiny)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (lists factors for not abusing discretion in plea withdrawal)
- State v. Drake, 73 Ohio App.3d 640 (1991) (mere change of heart not sufficient to withdraw plea)
- State v. Lambros, 44 Ohio App.3d 102 (1988) (coercion and understanding considerations in plea withdrawal)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1995) (innocence claim as potential factor in withdrawal analysis)
- State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36 (1983) (promises and coercion standards in plea context)
- State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. No. 85294 (2005) (proof required for coercion-based withdrawal claims)