State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David M. Cook, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20AP-519 (C.P.C. No. 19CR-5638)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
July 15, 2021
[Cite as State v. Cook, 2021-Ohio-2416.]
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on July 15, 2021
On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, for appellee.
On brief: Brian J. Rigg, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, David M. Cook, appeals from a judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas finding him guilty, pursuant to guilty plea, of failure to comply with an order of a police officer and violating a protection order. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} By indictment filed October 31, 2019, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, charged Cook with one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in violation of
{¶ 3} Cook initially entered a plea of not guilty. However, on September 15, 2020, Cook withdrew his general plea of not guilty and entered a guilty plea to one count of failure to comply as a fourth-degree felony and one count of violation of a protection order as a fifth-degree felony. The state agreed to a nolle prosequi on the remaining two counts pursuant to the plea agreement. The parties also jointly recommended that the trial court order a pre-sentence investigation.
{¶ 4} On September 15, 2020, the trial court conducted a plea hearing pursuant to
{¶ 5} The trial court then asked Cook whether he had enough time with his attorney to go over the plea form, and he indicated that he had. After explaining the charges to which Cook was admitting guilt and the possible penalties associated with those charges, the trial court asked Cook whether he understood the charges, penalties, and rights he was giving up by foregoing a trial, with Cook affirmatively stating he understood all of those components, including the possibility that he could face time in prison. The trial court also inquired about Cook‘s level of education, and Cook stated he has a master‘s degree in computer information systems. Further, the trial court informed Cook he could have more time with his attorney if he felt he needed it to talk about any of the charges and possible
{¶ 6} The trial court found Cook‘s plea to be competently, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and accepted Cook‘s guilty plea. At the conclusion of the plea hearing, the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and scheduled a sentencing hearing for October 15, 2020.
{¶ 7} Two days after entering his guilty plea, Cook wrote a letter to the trial court on September 17, 2020 asking to withdraw his plea. The letter, itself, was not made part of the record, but the trial court summarized its contents at the October 15, 2020 hearing as follows:
On September 17th, it appears Mr. Cook wrote a personal letter to the court. I‘ve provided copies to counsel, along with the envelope which was postmarked September 25th at the Jackson Pike jail facility. The letter has two points in it. It says that after a review of his plea agreement, “it has been brought to my attention that this is an open plea and none of the terms relayed to me by counsel are binding in any way. Therefore, I wish to withdraw my plea of guilty.” It goes on in the second paragraph to say, “I am having trouble understanding why felony charges were brought against me in this case. There was no physical harm or damage. And my previous conviction of violation of a protection order was in lieu of a plea agreement,” whatever that means. “There was no infringement upon my estranged wife involved at any time. There are no other relevant past convictions in this case whatsoever.” He concludes by saying it‘s not his intention to waste the court‘s time in this matter. “I feel I deserve to be represented fairly and without frivolity,” if I can read his handwriting.
(Oct. 15, 2020 Tr. at 2-3.)
{¶ 8} Based on Cook‘s letter, the trial court conducted a hearing under
{¶ 9} After considering the factors that weighed for and against allowing Cook to withdraw his plea, the trial court denied Cook‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Cook assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court erred when it denied defendant-appellant‘s rule 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
III. Analysis
{¶ 11} In his sole assignment of error, Cook argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 12} A criminal defendant may file a pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
{¶ 13} A trial court is not required to grant a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we look to a number of non-exhaustive factors, including: (1) any potential prejudice to the prosecution if the trial court vacated the plea; (2) whether highly competent counsel represented the defendant; (3) the extent of the
{¶ 14} Cook presented the trial court with two main reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea: (1) his confusion over whether there was an agreed sentence if he entered the plea, and (2) his confusion over why the charges against him included felony charges. The trial court conducted a full hearing on Cook‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Cook‘s motion, concluding Cook did not present a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his plea. The trial court noted that given Cook‘s level of education, it had a hard time believing he was truly confused about
1. Potential Prejudice to the Prosecution
{¶ 15} First, the state argued it would suffer prejudice if Cook were allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because of the difficulty in seating juries during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court explored those concerns, noting the ongoing challenges the pandemic posed to scheduling criminal trials and the backlog the pandemic was creating in the courts. However, as the trial court noted, this prejudice is not specific to Cook‘s attempted withdrawal of his guilty plea; the scheduling challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic exist for all court proceedings. Cook made his motion to withdraw only two days after entering his plea, thereby undermining any genuine possibility that the pandemic scheduling concerns were any greater or any less before or after Cook entered his plea. Thus, for purposes of the balancing test, the first factor weighs in favor of granting Cook‘s motion.
2. Highly Competent Counsel
{¶ 16} The second factor looks to whether highly competent counsel represented Cook. As the trial court specifically noted in considering Cook‘s motion to withdraw, Cook had highly competent counsel throughout the proceedings even when Cook sometimes chose to view his counsel as an adversary. Additionally, though Cook complained of his counsel‘s representation when he sought to withdraw his plea, he specifically expressed his satisfaction with his counsel on the record when he was entering his plea. Thus, the second factor weighs against Cook‘s motion.
3. Crim.R. 11 Hearing
{¶ 17} The third factor examines the extent of the
4. Receipt of a Full Hearing on the Motion to Withdraw
{¶ 18} The fourth factor in the balancing test asks whether Cook received a full hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record indicates that Cook sent a letter dated September 17, 2020 to the trial court asking to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court conducted a full hearing on the motion to withdraw on October 15, 2020, giving both parties ample opportunity to argue regarding Cook‘s motion. Thus, because the trial court gave Cook a full opportunity to be heard on his motion, the fourth factor weighs against Cook‘s motion.
5. Full and Fair Consideration of the Motion
{¶ 19} The fifth factor looks to whether the trial court fully and fairly considered Cook‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After providing Cook with a full hearing, the trial court orally went through all of the factors it took into consideration in denying Cook‘s motion. The trial court noted Cook‘s primary reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea and explained why, given the case history and Cook‘s behavior throughout the proceedings, it believed Cook simply had a change of heart about the plea rather than any genuine confusion over the charges or possible penalties. After duly considering Cook‘s motion and conducting the appropriate balancing test, the trial court concluded Cook did not present a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of his plea. Thus, the fifth factor weighs against Cook‘s motion.
6. Reasonable Time
{¶ 20} The sixth factor asks us to consider whether Cook made his motion within a reasonable time. Cook wrote a letter to the trial court asking to withdraw his plea on September 17, 2020, two days after he had entered the plea on September 15, 2020. We find this to be a reasonable time. Thus, the sixth factor weighs in favor of Cook‘s motion.
7. Specific Reasons for Withdrawal
{¶ 21} The seventh factor asks whether Cook set forth in his motion specific reasons for the withdrawal. In his letter to the trial court, Cook gave very succinct reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea: he did not understand that there was not an agreement as to his sentence and he further did not understand why the charges against him were felony-level offenses. During his hearing, Cook also claimed he did not have his reading glasses with him the day of the hearing and thus was unable to read the plea form before he entered the plea, though he stated on the record during the
8. Whether Cook Understood the Charges and Possible Penalties
{¶ 22} The eighth factor asks whether Cook understood the nature of the charges and the possible penalties. At the
9. Possible Defense to the Charges
{¶ 23} Under the ninth and final factor, we look to whether Cook had possible defenses to the charges against him. Cook argued he did not understand why he was facing felony-level charges, asserting his conduct was not serious enough to warrant such charges. However, as the trial court noted, Cook‘s disagreement with the seriousness of the offenses is different than Cook asserting a possible defense to the charges. Here, Cook did not dispute the facts as charged during his
{¶ 24} In summation, the majority of the nine factors weigh against Cook‘s motion. Moreover, a trial court appropriately assesses a defendant‘s credibility in considering the defendant‘s asserted reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. State v. Ganguly, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-383, 2015-Ohio-845, ¶ 23. Here, the trial court determined Cook‘s primary reason for wanting to withdraw his plea was that he merely had a change of heart rather than being genuinely confused about the possible sentences he faced. We are mindful that the trial court is in the best position to consider the credibility of Cook‘s arguments, and the trial court concluded Cook‘s apparent change of heart did not present a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of his plea. Purnell at ¶ 28; State v. Burris, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-238, 2013-Ohio-5108, ¶ 18. Having reviewed the record and weighed the nine factors in the balancing test, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cook‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we overrule Cook‘s sole assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 25} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cook‘s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Having overruled Cook‘s
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, P.J., and BROWN, J., concur.