Stаte of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Locher, Defendant-Appellant.
Case No. 11CA3414
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
Filed: February 22, 2012
2012-Ohio-787
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Gene Meadows, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellant.
Mark E. Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Hale, Scioto County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellee.
Kline, J.:
{¶1} Miсhael Locher appeals the judgment of the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, which convicted him of illegal possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of
{¶2} Accordingly, we overrule Lochеr‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶3} On May 13, 2010, Locher asserts that his vehicle was parked on the side of a road (off the state right of way) while he assisted another motorist whose vehiclе had broken down. An Ohio State Patrol officer stopped at the scene to offer assistance, but the officer was informed that assistance was not needed. Nevertheless, the officer approached Locher‘s vehicle, and, according to Locher, the only items in plain view inside the vehicle were cans of starting fluid and a black duffle bag in the back seat. According to Locher, the officer ordered Locher to sit in Locher‘s vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Locher and the occupants of his vehicle were (1) removed from Locher‘s vehicle, (2) searched, and (3) placed in the patrol car.
{¶4} According to Locher, the officer searched Locher‘s vehicle and found what the officer believed to be chemicals used to manufacture drugs. The officer also found what he believed to be methamphetamine on the ground where Locher had been standing. The officer arrested Locher and took him to jail.
{¶5} A grand jury issued a three-count indictment against Locher. During the pretrial process, Locher filed a motion to suppress in which he argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional. Before the trial court heard the motion to suppress, however, Locher agreed to plеad guilty to one count of illegal possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of
{¶6} Locher and the state аgreed to a sentencing recommendation of two years in prison. However, a condition of the agreement was that Locher abide by the terms of his bond, otherwise he would face a five-year sentеnce. The terms of Locher‘s bond
{¶7} At the sentencing hearing, the trial сourt heard arguments regarding Locher‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court, however, denied Locher‘s motion and sentenced him to five years in prison.
{¶8} Locher appeals and asserts the following аssignment of error: “The Trial Court abused its discretion and erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant when the Trial Court refused to allow the Defendant-Appellant to withdraw the plea of guilty.”
II.
{¶9} In his sole аssignment of error, Locher argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶10} “[T]he decision whether to grant a
{¶11} Under
{¶12} We consider the following factors when determining whether a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a pre-sentence guilty plea: “‘(1) whether the accused was represented by highly competent counsel, (2) whether the accused was given a full
{¶14} In support of his argument on appeal, Locher reiterates the arguments he originally made in his motion to suppress, which he filed prior to pleading guilty. We conclude, however, that, based upon Locher‘s own arguments, his motion tо suppress lacks merit. First, the officer was authorized to investigate a disabled vehicle on the side of the road. See State v. Chrzanowski, 180 Ohio App.3d 324, 2008-Ohio-6993, 905 N.E.2d 266, ¶ 26 (“[I]t is well established that a police officer can stop a motorist if he has a susрicion that the driver may be in need of assistance.“). Second, as Locher admits, the officer found what he believed to be methamphetamine on the ground where Locher was standing. Furthermore, starting fluid, which Locher admits was in plain view inside the vehicle, is a component used to manufacture methamphetamine. See State v. Blevins, 4th Dist. No. 10CA3353, 2011-Ohio-3367, ¶ 23 (“Blevins apparently concedes that the chemicals found in the vehicle—pseudoеphedrine, ether in the starting fluid, and lithium in the batteries—may be used to manufacture methamphetamine.“). Thus, based on Locher‘s own assertions, the officer had probable cause to search Locher‘s vehiсle based on (1) the presence of what appeared to be methamphetamine on the ground and (2) the starting fluid in plain view inside the vehicle. See State v. Salvato, 1st Dist. No. C-980939, 1999 WL 636557, *1 (Aug. 13, 1999) (“The officer observed a blunt cigar, containing marijuana, inside the car. He had seen two persons sitting in the car as he walked up. There were baggies containing
{¶15} Thus, Locher has failed to carry his burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, despite his argument to the contrary, Locher has not shown that “he was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges.‘” Campbell, 2009-Ohio-4992, ¶ 7.
{¶16} Additionally, we reject Locher‘s argument on appeal to thе extent it implies that the trial court did not give full consideration to the merits of Locher‘s motion to withdraw his plea. The record indicates that, at the start of Locher‘s sentencing hearing, the trial court affordеd Locher the opportunity to argue in support of his motion to withdraw his plea. Locher‘s trial counsel argued on Locher‘s behalf, and the state asserted its position on the issue. After considering these arguments, the trial court denied Locher‘s motion. Therefore, Locher cannot demonstrate that the trial court failed to give Locher‘s motion a full and fair hearing. See State v. Forest, 2d Dist. App. No. 19649, 2003-Ohio-1945, ¶ 19 (“[A] trial court‘s inviting and hearing oral argumеnts on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, immediately before sentence is imposed, can constitute a full and fair hearing on that motion.“).
{¶17} Finally, we note that Locher violated the terms of his bond, which directly impacted his sentence. Locher agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a jointly
{¶18} Thus, wе conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Locher‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED. Appellant shall pay the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY:_____________________________
Roger L. Kline, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.