STATE OF OHIO v. JERMAINE KING
No. 106709
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
November 29, 2018
[Cite as State v. King, 2018-Ohio-4780.]
E.T. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-621804-A
Jordan Sidoti, L.L.P.
50 Public Square
Terminal Tower, Suite 1900
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Eric Norton
Norton Law Firm Co., L.P.A.
12434 Cedar Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Mary Weston
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{1} Defendant-appellant, Jermaine King, appeals from the trial court‘s judgment denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He raises the following assignment of error for review:
- The trial court erred by denying appellant‘s motion to vacate guilty plea.
{2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
I. Procedural and Factual History
{3} In September 2017, King was named in a four-count indictment, charging him with attempted rape in violation of
{4} In December 2017, King withdrew his previously entered plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to rape, as charged in Count 3 of the indictment. The remaining counts were nolled. Following a
{5} At the onset of the motion to withdraw hearing, the trial court stated that based on the argument raised in King‘s motion, it contacted the county jail psychiatric unit to determine what medications King was prescribed, whether he was compliant with those medications, and whether the side effects of the medication would impair the validity of his plea. The court stated that it learned from staff members at the psychiatric unit that King was compliant with his Zoloft medication, but that “the side effects that [King] was complaining of * * * are not side effects of that medication.” The court stated that the medication “wouldn‘t cause drowsiness or inability to understand what was going on.” Thereafter, the court provided the parties with the opportunity to be heard.
{6} With respect to the trial court‘s statements, counsel for King maintained that King was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because King “feels that he was not in his right mind” at the time he entered his plea. Counsel advised the court that after King entered his guilty plea, he mentioned to counsel that he “really [didn‘t] understand what was going on” in his case.
{7} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied King‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, stating, in relevant part:
After reading basically through the entire plea colloquy now on the record and holding this hearing I do not believe that grounds exist to vacate the plea. So I‘m not going to permit that to happen so the plea stands.
The matter proceeded to sentencing, and the trial court imposed a seven-year term of imprisonment.
{8} King now appeals from the trial court‘s judgment.
II. Law and Analysis
{9} In his sole assignment of error, King argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{10} Under
{11} In general, “a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). It is well established, however, that “[a] defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing. A trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{12} The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw is within the trial court‘s discretion. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court‘s decision must be affirmed. Id. at 527. An abuse of discretion requires a finding that the trial court‘s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{14} This court has also set forth additional factors to consider, including whether (5) the motion was made in a reasonable time, (6) the motion states specific reasons for withdrawal, (7) the accused understood the nature of the charges and the possible penalties, and (8) the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense. State v. Benson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83178, 2004-Ohio-1677, ¶ 9, citing State v. Pinkerton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 75906 and 75907, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4453 (Sept. 23, 1999); State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995).
{15} In this case, King‘s motion to withdraw was made in a reasonable time and set forth specific reasons for withdrawal. King does not make a protestation of innocence; nor does he dispute that he was given a full
{16} Regarding the competency of counsel, King contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea stage by failing “to evaluate or ask his client whether or not he understood the nature of what was occurring.” King relies on the following
DEFENSE COUNSEL: [King] was somewhat compliant [during the plea hearing] — [he] did understand what we were talking about, but maybe not totally. * * * You know, afterwards when he was back in the — after court after he pled guilty, he mentioned to me at the time the fact that he doesn‘t really understand what was going on even after we spent some time together when I went over the plea with him. So maybe I should have brought that to the Court‘s attention prior to taking the plea; which I did not. I thought he understood but possibly not so I‘m a little concerned about the fact that it is a very serious case.
{17} After careful review, we are unable to conclude that King was not represented by highly competent counsel during the plea hearing. While King may have expressed some confusion during a private conversation with counsel after the plea hearing concluded, the record reflects that counsel spent time with King prior to the plea and carefully “went over the plea with him.” In fact, counsel admitted that he believed King understood the nature of his plea based on their conversations prior to the plea hearing. In addition, King‘s understanding of the plea and its consequences is supported by his statements during the plea hearing. The record reflects that the trial court explained to King the effect of a guilty plea, the nature of the charges at issue, the potential penalties he faced, and the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. King repeatedly stated that he understood the court‘s advisements and confirmed to the court that no threats or promises had been made to him in exchange for his plea. He further stated that while he was taking medication, he was thinking clearly and “underst[ood] everything that [was] happening.” At no time did King express that he did not understand the matters of which he was advised. Under the totality of these circumstances, we find the record does not support King‘s vague contention that “counsel‘s advocacy was less than competent.” Rather, the record reflects
{18} King next argues that he was not given a complete hearing on his motion to withdraw because the court was “seemingly unwilling to give impartial consideration to counsel‘s concerns regarding King‘s understanding of his plea.” In essence, King contends that once the trial court determined that Zoloft had not impaired King‘s ability to comprehend, the court failed to give adequate consideration to counsel‘s performance during the plea hearing.
{19} Viewing the transcript of the proceedings in its entirety, we find King was afforded a complete and impartial hearing on his motion to withdraw. The record does not support King‘s contention that the trial court did not sufficiently consider counsel‘s statement that King expressed confusion about the status of his case after the plea hearing concluded. To the contrary, the trial court permitted counsel to set forth arguments on behalf of King, including references to King‘s conversations with counsel after the plea hearing occurred. Ultimately, however, the court determined that King‘s alleged confusion or misunderstanding of his plea was not supported by the plea hearing transcript. Accordingly, we find the court‘s decision was not the product of impartial consideration. Rather, the trial court‘s judgment was rendered after careful consideration of the plea colloquy and upon confirmation from the administrator‘s of King‘s medication that “confusion is not a side effect of Zoloft.”
{20} Finally, King contends that the trial court did not give full and fair consideration to his plea withdrawal request. Again, King argues that the trial court‘s judgment did not adequately consider the deficiencies in counsel‘s performance during the plea stage and, instead, depended “solely on the emails and investigation [the court] had done into the impact of Zoloft.” For the reasons previously stated, we find the trial court gave full and fair consideration to
{21} Based on the foregoing, we find King was represented by highly competent counsel at the time of the plea, was given a full
{22} King‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{23} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR