{¶ 2} Defendant-appellant, Gregory Harris, appeals the decision of the trial court. Having reviewed the arguments of thе parties and the pertinent law, we hereby affirm the lower court.
{¶ 4} On January 9, 2007, appеllant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On January 25, 2007, the trial court granted the state's motion for an extension to file its motion in opposition by February 9, 2007. On January 30, 2007, appellee filed its opposition to the withdrawal of appellant's guilty plea. The trial court overruled appellant's motion to withdraw in an order journalized on February 20, 2007. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a Loc.R. 9 docketing statement *4 rеquesting that the appeal be assigned to the accelerated calendar on March 13, 2007. On April 2, 2007, appellant filed his brief in support.
*5"Postsentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas are not freely granted because that would allow defendаnts to withdraw their pleas when unfavorable sentences are received. If a plea of guilty can be retracted with ease after sentence, the accused might be encouraged to plead guilty to test the weight of potential punishment, and withdraw the plea if the sentenсe were unexpectedly severe."
{¶ 7} In the case at bar, appellant did not file a transcript of his original plea. Because nо transcript was provided to this appellate court, we must presume the trial court's findings of fact are correct.State v. Skaggs (1978),
{¶ 8} A hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not required if the facts as alleged by a defendant, and accepted as true by the court, would not require that the guilty plea be withdrawn. Additionally, a hearing is not required where the record, on its face, conclusively and irrefutably contradicts the allegations in support of withdrаwal. R.C.
{¶ 9} Here, the lower court did not provide a hearing on appellant's motion. However, the trial court's journal entry indicates that full and fаir consideration was afforded the plea withdrawal request. In the journal entry denying appellant's motion, the lower court held that the only evidence provided by appellant was a self-serving affidavit. This demonstrates that the lower court read appellant's motion and did not find сredibility with the contents of the affidavit. We find that the evidence in the record shows that the lower court's actions were proper. *6
{¶ 10} Assuming arguendо appellant had provided evidence to support the terms of the plea agreement, his argument would still lack merit. Appellant states that the prosecutor's office agreed to write a letter in support of his parole if he maintained an unblemished prison recоrd prior to his first parole hearing. Indeed, appellant states in his own brief that he was to stay "incident free" while in prison in order for the prosecution to recommend that he be released on parole.
{¶ 11} However, appellant failed to stay incident free while in prison. Aрpellant was incarcerated on April 28, 1993. On August 25, 1993, appellant committed a Class II disciplinary infraction. The infraction was a Class II, Rule 1, and Rule 25 violation to which appellant pled guilty. Therefore, in less than six months appellant's prison record was blemished, and the state was, therefore, no longer required to write a letter in support of his parole and was free to object to his parole.
{¶ 12} In addition, on May 18, 1994, apрellant pled guilty to a Class II, Rules 1, 17, and 25 violation for allowing another inmate to use his pass to access other portions of the penitentiary before returning the pass to the proper authority. On May 18, 1995, appellant committed a Class II, Rule 15, violation by allowing the dishes in the washer conveyer to become jammed inside because he was engaging in horseplay. The rules infraction board found appellant guilty of this violаtion and gave appellant eight hours of extra duty. *7
{¶ 13} On January 28, 2003, appellant pled guilty to a Class II, Rule 25, violation for being in the inmate sick cell without permission. For this disciplinary infraction, appellant was required to complete 60 hours of extra duty. On November 4, 2005, appellant was found guilty of violating Rule 51 for having contraband, two recordable tapes, within his possession. For this violation, he was given two extra hours of duty. On April 6, 2006, appellant pled guilty to a violation of Rule 61 for hanging a towel across his bed and blocking the view of his face. On June 23, 2006, appellant was found guilty of violating Rules 21, 22, and 35 for not performing duties assigned to him. Appellant's disciplinary record has numerous infractions dating back to August 1993. Accordingly, appellаnt did not stay incident free, and the state was under no obligation to recommend that appellant be put on parole.
{¶ 14} The evidence in the record demonstrates that the lower court was within its discretion to deny appellant's Crim.R. 32.1 motion without a hearing. The trial court's decision to deny appellant's postsentence motion was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
{¶ 15} Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. *8 It is orderеd that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
*1MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR.