State v. ChandlerState v. Chandler
Rendered on October 22, 2013
KLATT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-apрellant, Antwaun L. Chandler, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea without a hearing. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm that judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 2001, after having been bound оver to the trial court from the juvenile court, a grand jury indicted appellant with one count of aggravated murder with a death penalty and firearm specification and one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specificаtion. Appellant was 17 years old at the time of the offenses. Appellant originally entered a not guilty plea to thе charges but subsequently withdrew his not guilty plea and
{¶ 3} Five months after his plea, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant claimed that he entered his guilty рlea based on trial counsel‘s lie to him that an accomplice had been arrested, had implicated him in the оffenses, and agreed to testify against him. The trial court eventually held a hearing in 2007 and denied appellant‘s petition. This court affirmed that decision. State v. Chandler, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-394, 2009-Ohio-5858.
{¶ 4} On April 23, 2013, almost 12 years after his guilty plea, appellant filed a postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, appellant alleged that he was actually innocent of the offenses. In support of his сlaim of innocence, appellant presented affidavits of two co-defendants, who both swore that appellant did not participate in the robbery or murder. Another affiant swore that he lied about appellant allegеdly confessing to the murder. The trial court denied appellant‘s motion without a hearing, concluding that appellant‘s рrevious admissions to being involved in the crimes contradicted the exculpatory statements of his accomplicеs and his own current claim of innocence.
II. The Appeal
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals and assigns the following error:
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When The Court Denied Chandler‘s Motion To Withdraw Guilty Plea Withоut An Evidentiary Hearing.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} A trial court is not automatically required to hold a hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. State v. Spivakov, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-32, 2013-Ohio-3343, ¶ 11, citing State v. Barrett, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-375, 2011-Ohio-4986, ¶ 9. A hearing must only be hеld if the facts alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require that the defendant be allowed to withdraw the plea. Id.
{¶ 8} The decision whether to hold a hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea and whether to grant or deny the motion is left to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus; Spivakoc at ¶ 10. Therefore, this court‘s review of the trial court‘s denial оf a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea or the decision not to hold a hearing is limited to a determinatiоn of whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Conteh, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-490, 2009-Ohio-6780, ¶ 16. Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, its decisions сoncerning a post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea must be affirmed. State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527 (1992). Although an abuse of discretion is typically defined as an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision, State v. Beavers, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1064, 2012-Ohio-3654, ¶ 8, we note that no court has the authority, within its discretion, to commit an error of law. State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 70.
B. The Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion by Denying Appellant‘s Motion to Withdraw Without a Hearing
{¶ 9} Appellаnt based his motion to withdraw on his claim of actual innocence. That claim is not properly before this court on аppeal, as ” ‘a counseled plea of guilty to a charge removes the issue of factual guilt from the casе.’ ” State v. McMichael, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1042, 2012-Ohio-3166, ¶ 36, quoting State v. Beckwith, 8th Dist. No. 91399, 2009-Ohio-1244, fn. 4; State v. Stumph, 32 Ohio St.3d 95, 104-05 (1987). Appellant has not challenged the trial court‘s acceptance of his guilty plea, so we have no cause to re-examine issues those pleas properly resolved. McMichael, citing State v. Kimpel, 6th Dist. No. WM-07-008, 2007-Ohio-6129, ¶ 20; State v. Lababidi, 8th Dist. No. 96755, 2012-Ohio-267, ¶ 17 (affirming denial of motion to withdraw and noting that defendant could not claim innocence because he entered a guilty plea).
{¶ 10} We also note that appellаnt did not dispute the prosecutor‘s recitation of facts at his plea hearing. At that hearing, the prosecutor stated that appellant pulled out a handgun and shot the victim three times during a robbery. When the trial court asked appellant if he was guilty of the charges pending against him, appellant responded affirmatively. And, as this court noted in our previous decision affirming the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, appellant admitted to being involved in the shoоting. Chandler at ¶ 11. For these additional reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 11} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant‘s motiоn to withdraw without a hearing. Accordingly, we overrule appellant‘s assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and SADLER, JJ., concur.