State v. GoodState v. Good
Rendered on May 5, 2023
ANDREW PARKER PICKERING, Attorney for Appellee
RICHARD L. KAPLAN, Attorney for Appellant
EPLEY, J.
{1} Defendant-Appellant Howard Eugene Good appeals from his conviction in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas after he pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault and was sentenced to four to six years in prison. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{3} On February 25, 2022, the parties gathered for what was supposed to be Good‘s disposition. However, he informed the court that he wished to withdraw his guilty plea and instead take the case to trial. The trial court delayed imposing Good‘s sentence and set a date to hear his argument as to why the guilty plea should be set aside. The proceeding then turned into a bond violation hearing. Good admitted that he had gone to a casino and to Columbus without permission, and the court revoked his bond, remanding him to jail until the case was resolved.
{4} The trial court held a hearing on Good‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on March 4, 2022. Good and his trial attorney both testified. Ultimately, the court overruled Good‘s motion, believing the motion was simply based on a change of heart.
{5} On April 12, 2022, Good was sentenced to four-to-six years in prison. He has appealed, raising a single assignment of error.
II. Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea
{6} In his assignment of error, Good contends that the trial court abused its
{7}
{8} In evaluating whether a trial court has abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, we have adopted the nine factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379, 99 N.E.3d 1056(1st Dist.):
- whether the accused is represented by highly competent counsel,
- whether the accused was given a full
Crim.R. 11 hearing before entering the plea, - whether a full hearing was held on the motion,
- whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion,
- whether the motion was made within a reasonable time,
- whether the motion sets out specific reasons for the withdrawal,
- whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and possible penalties,
- whether the accused was perhaps not guilty of or had a complete defense to the charge or charges, and
- whether the state is prejudiced by withdrawal of the plea.
Consideration of the factors involves a balancing test, and no single factor is dispositive. State v. Massey, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2015-CA-1, 2015-Ohio-4711, ¶ 11. The ultimate question is whether there is a “reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” State v. Becraft, 2017-Ohio-1464, 89 N.E.3d 218, ¶ 54 (2d Dist.), quoting Xie at 584.
{9} In this case, Good provided the trial court with testimony that he had agreed to plead guilty because he believed, in exchange, he would receive probation (community control). He further stated that he would have never agreed to an “open plea” because of his criminal history. This testimony, though, was belied by the record, which compelled the conclusion the trial court made - that Good had just had a change of heart.
{10} At the plea hearing, the court engaged in a detailed colloquy with Good, explaining the rights (both constitutional and non-constitutional) he would be giving up by pleading guilty. The court also explained his sentencing range possibilities, including the
{11} Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this appeal, the trial court confirmed that Good had read his plea agreement in its entirety with his attorney, understood it, and signed it. The court also confirmed that no one had made any promises to Good other than what had been put on the record and that he was satisfied with his attorney. Persuaded that Good was voluntarily entering into the plea agreement, the trial court accepted the plea.
{12} There is nothing in the record that demonstrates Good was promised community control if he pled guilty. The terms of the agreement were that he would plead guilty as charged, the court would order a PSI, and the State would stay silent at sentencing. At the motion hearing, Good‘s defense counsel stated the same thing, telling the judge that he had never told Good he would get probation as a result of pleading guilty. “I would have said the decision‘s always in the court‘s hands, and we would have gone into detail through the plea agreement.” March 4, 2022, Hearing Tr. at 13. Finally, Good‘s own brief seems to admit that community control was off the table, stating, “[a]n examination of facts within the record demonstrate Mr. Good would in all probability not receive probation[.]” Appellant‘s Brief at 10.
{13} Nevertheless, Good makes another argument: the trial court should have explained that there was a presumption of incarceration for his second-degree felony.
{14} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Good‘s presentence motion to withdraw his plea. Good was afforded a full
III. Conclusion
{15} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
WELBAUM, P.J. and LEWIS, J., concur.