State v. EdwardsState v. Edwards
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Andrew M. Bigler for Appellee
{1} Defendant-appellant Zachery L. Edwards (“Edwards“) appeals the judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{2} On September 30, 2021, Edwards was indicted on seven counts of rape in violation of
{3} On October 28, 2022, Edwards appeared for his sentencing hearing and made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. In response, the trial court rescheduled the sentencing hearing. On February 23, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Edwards‘s motion to withdraw. Neither party presented any testimony at this hearing. On March 6, 2023, the trial court denied Edwards‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing on March 14, 2023.
{4} Edwards filed his notice of appeal on April 12, 2023. On appeal, he raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred when it overruled appellant‘s oral motion to withdraw his plea before he was sentenced.
Edwards asserts that the factors courts are to consider in evaluating motions to withdraw pleas weigh in his favor.
Legal Standard
{5} Under
“A presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted.” * * * A defendant does not, however, have an “absolute right” to withdraw his or her plea, even when a motion to withdraw is made before sentencing.
State v. Barnes, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4486, --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). “Before ruling on a defendant‘s presentence motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawing the plea.” Barnes at ¶ 13.
{6} “The determination whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the defendant‘s request to withdraw his plea is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.“” Barnes at ¶ 13, quoting Xie at paragraph two of the syllabus. For this reason, a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea will not be
Legal Analysis
{7} On review, appellate courts have typically relied upon a list of nine factors to evaluate a trial court‘s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea. These nine factors are as follows:
(1) whether the withdrawal will prejudice the prosecution; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the hearing held pursuant to Crim.R. 11; (4) the extent of the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration of the motion; (6) whether the timing of the motion was reasonable; (7) the stated reasons for the motion; (8) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; and (9) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges.
State v. Bingham, 2019-Ohio-3324, 141 N.E.3d 614, ¶ 42 (3d Dist.). See State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379, 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.); State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980).
{9} In reaching this conclusion, our sister districts have noted that the Ohio Supreme Court did not reject or overrule the nine-factor analysis but simply concluded that these “factors do not apply here.” Johnson at ¶ 43, quoting Barnes, supra, at ¶ 24. Finding the reasoning of these other decisions to be persuasive, we join our sister districts in continuing to apply the nine-factor analysis to cases that do not present a situation that is factually similar to Barnes. Wroten at ¶ 31; Kohler at ¶ 15; Grier at ¶ 26; Johnson at ¶ 44-45. Since Edwards has not alleged that he became aware of new evidence that would have affected his decision to enter a plea, we will use the nine-factor analysis to evaluate the trial court‘s decision.
{11} The representation afforded to the defendant by counsel: During the course of this case, Edwards was represented by attorneys from three different firms. In its judgment entry, the trial court conducted an extensive summary of Edwards‘s representation, concluding that these attorneys were experienced in criminal law and were “highly competent.” (Doc. 70).
{12} The extent of the hearing held pursuant to Crim.R. 11: On August 12, 2022, the trial court engaged Edwards in a thorough
{14} Whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration of the motion: The trial court‘s judgment entry indicates that it considered the arguments of the parties and viewed the exhibit submitted at the hearing before reaching a decision. The judgment entry examines the applicable factors and fully explains the trial court‘s reasons for denying Edwards‘s motion.
{15} Whether the timing of the motion was reasonable: Edwards made his motion to withdraw on the date of his sentencing hearing. According to its brief, the State does not believe that, under the facts of this case, the timing of this motion was unreasonable. The trial court does not appear to have relied upon this factor in reaching its decision on this motion.
{16} The stated reasons for the motion: The defendant did not give any reasons for his motion to withdraw at the hearing other than that he “felt rushed to make the decision * * *” (Tr. 4). However, in this case, the trial court gave Edwards time to confer with defense counsel during the
{17} Whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences: At the
{18} Whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges: At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, defense counsel asserted that Edwards maintained his innocence of the charges. In response, the State pointed out that he had admitted “to the PSI writer * * * that he did in fact have sexual conduct with the victim while she was under the age of 13.” (Tr. 6). The State then argued that his claim of innocence at the hearing contradicted his own admissions. At this hearing, Edwards did not identify any evidence or raise any arguments that would suggest that he has a complete defense to the charges against him.
{19} In this case, Edwards did not provide the trial court with a reasonable or legitimate basis for his motion to withdraw his guilty plea in this case. Without
Conclusion
{20} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.
/hls