2019 Ohio 4824
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Ricardo Ybarra was charged with domestic violence (1st‑degree misdemeanor) and unauthorized use of a vehicle; he initially pleaded not guilty but then entered a no‑contest plea to domestic violence in exchange for dismissal of the vehicle charge.
- The municipal court accepted the no‑contest plea, continued for a PSI, and Ybarra promptly (one week later) moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing.
- A newly appointed judge reviewed recordings, held a hearing, and denied the motion; the court thereafter sentenced Ybarra to 180 days in jail.
- On appeal, the Sixth District remanded once to obtain a final, appealable entry; after the amended judgment was entered the court considered two assignments of error: (1) denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and (2) whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- The court applied the nine Griffin factors (from Sixth District precedent) and Crim.R.11 analysis for petty misdemeanors, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the plea complied with Crim.R.11(E).
- A separate dissent argued the trial court abused its discretion by failing to address Ybarra’s claimed innocence at the withdrawal hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ybarra) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ybarra’s presentence motion to withdraw his no‑contest plea | The motion was timely but amounted to buyer’s remorse; Ybarra had competent counsel, the plea colloquy was adequate, and withdrawal would not prejudice the State | He was confused/nervous, may not have understood consequences (including firearm prohibition), signed forms without reading, and claims innocence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion—Griffin factors overall favored denial (competent counsel, adequate plea colloquy, full hearing; only a change of heart) |
| Whether Ybarra’s no‑contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R.11 | For a petty misdemeanor Crim.R.11(E) applies; the court adequately informed defendant of the effect of the plea (per Crim.R.11(B)) | He was not properly advised of trial rights (relied on Crim.R.11(C) for felonies) and did not understand the plea’s effect | Affirmed: Crim.R.11(E) applied to this petty offense and the court properly informed Ybarra of the effect of a no‑contest plea, so the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (trial court must hold a hearing on presentence motion to withdraw plea and denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Murphy, 176 Ohio App.3d 345 (6th Dist. 2008) (lists factors courts typically consider on presentence plea‑withdrawal motions)
- State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (7th Dist. 2001) (source of the nine‑factor framework used by Ohio courts)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2007) (Crim.R.11(B) explains the "effect of the plea" referenced in Crim.R.11(E) for petty offenses)