State v. Wofford
2015 Ohio 3708
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Juan Wofford was indicted in Butler County for attempted murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability after allegedly shooting Carlos Knight in the head.
- Wofford pleaded guilty to felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11, second-degree felony) with a three-year firearm specification and to having weapons while under disability (R.C. 2923.13, third-degree felony); other counts were merged or dismissed.
- At the plea hearing Wofford acknowledged understanding the charges, consequences, and rights waived; the court found the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and ordered PSI and sentencing.
- At sentencing Wofford sought to address the court and moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming insufficient evidence and that counsel pressured him into pleading; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
- The trial court sentenced Wofford to 8 years on felonious assault, plus a consecutive 3-year firearm specification, and a concurrent 3-year term for the disability offense (total 11 years).
- On appeal Wofford raised multiple arguments including erroneous denial of plea withdrawal, ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy concerns about preserved charges if the victim died, and alleged Brady violations; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea | State: Court properly conducted Crim.R. 11 colloquy and hearing; no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal | Wofford: Plea was coerced by counsel; evidence insufficient; wants to withdraw plea before sentencing | Denial affirmed — plea was voluntary, informed, counsel competent, and defendant’s change of heart insufficient |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance | State: Counsel investigated, negotiated dismissal of attempted murder, and Wofford affirmed satisfaction at plea | Wofford: Counsel failed to investigate, didn’t interview alibi witnesses, coerced plea by promising minimum sentence | Denied — record shows competent counsel, no showing of prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether double jeopardy bars preserved right to refile if victim later dies | State: Preservation of right to file additional charges was expressly made on the record and thus valid | Wofford: Reservation violates double jeopardy protection | Denied — reservation on the record is permissible; issue not yet ripe as no new charges filed |
| Whether prosecutor withheld Brady material | State: No evidence of withheld exculpatory statements in the record | Wofford: Alleged victim statement exonerating him was withheld | Denied — appellant provided no evidence that such a statement existed or was suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Carpenter, 68 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 1993) (state may reserve right to file additional charges if reservation is made on the record at plea)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (if one Strickland prong fails, courts need not consider the other)