State v. KoobState v. Koob
Rendered on March 22, 2024
ADAM J. ARNOLD, Attorney for Appellant
ROBERT C. LOGSDON, Attorney for Appellee
TUCKER, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant Israel Koob appeals from his convictions, following his guilty plеas, on three counts of felonious assault. Koob asserts the trial court erred by denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
{2} On January 15, 2022, Koob and several co-defendants fired gunshots from vehicles into a residence. Three people in the residence were injured because they were struck by bullets. On April 26, 2022, Koob was indicted on one count of improper discharge of a firearm at or into a habitation; one count of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises; three counts of felonious assault; one count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle; and one count of having a weapon under disability. All of the counts except having a weaрon under disability included firearm specifications.
{3} Following plea negotiations, Koob entered guilty pleas to the three counts of felonious аssault. In exchange, the State dismissed the other counts as well as the firearm specifications attached to the felonious assault charges. Thе plea hearing was conducted on March 9, 2023. Following the hearing, the trial court found Koob guilty of the three counts of felonious assault, but it deferred sentencing until the co-defendant‘s cases were resolved.
{4} On July 17, 2023, Koob filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The motion did not state the basis for the withdrawal. The Stаte opposed the motion. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel indicated that, although he had filed the motion to withdraw at Koob‘s request, he did not know the basis for the motion. Then the following colloquoy took place between Koob and the court:
KOOB: Because I didn‘t know I was, the maximum wаs 24 years and I wouldn‘t take plea deal if it was that - -
THE COURT: Well, at the time of the plea I went over the maximum penalties with you; you don‘t recall that? KOOB: Yeah. You said 8 to 12.
THE COURT: For each offense.
KOOB: I thought it was just оne when you said it, that you meant all together.
* * *
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I‘m kind of in a difficult position but it‘s my recollection that [Koob] is saying he wasn‘t aware that those three chargеs that he pled to could be run concurrently or consecutive. I am positive that that was discussed with him. And, again, it should be noted for the record that he filed this motion against my advice when I spoke to him, but, again, as I felt that because he was asking for it, it had to be filed * * *.
Motion Hearing Tr. p. 4-5, 7.
{5} The trial court denied the motion to withdraw thе pleas. It then sentenced Koob to an indefinite sentence of eight to 12 years in prison on one count of felonious assault and to an indefinite sentence of seven to 10.5 years on the other two counts. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate prison term of 22 to 26 years. Koob filed a timely appeal.
II. Discussion
APPELLANT‘S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN AND THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN NOT GRANTING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.
{7} Koob asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas. He asserts that the court did not inform him that his sentences could be run consecutively.
{8}
{9} Appellate courts review trial court decisions on motions to withdraw pleas for an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragrаph two of the syllabus. A court abuses its discretion when its decision displays an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).
{10} When evaluating a defendant‘s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a рlea, this court has adopted the 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.). State v. Good, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2022-CA-39, 2023-Ohio-1510, ¶ 8. Those factors include:
- 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 defensе to the charge or charges, and
- whether the state is prejudiced by withdrawal of the plea.
{11} When considering these factors, the trial court employs “a balancing test, and no single factor is dispositive.” State v. Massey, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2015-CA-1, 2015-Ohio-4711, ¶ 30, citing State v. Preston, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25393, 2013-Ohio-4404, ¶ 20. The issue for the trial court “is whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 527, 584 N.E.2d 715.
{12} Here, the record supports the trial court‘s findings that Koob was represented by competent counsel and was provided a full
{13} More importantly, Ohio
{14} On this record, we find no merit in Koob‘s argument. Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{15} The sole assignment of error being overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.