*1
[Cite as
State v. Pruitt
,
TRIAL NO. B-0901851 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N. vs. :
KENNETH PRUITT, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause
remanded. Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 30, 2011
Joseph T. Deters , Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James Michael Keeling , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Michaela Stagnaro , for Defendant-Appellant. Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar . *2 D INKELACKER Presiding Judge. In three assignments of error, defendant-appellant Kenneth Pruitt
challenges his convictions and sentences for numerous counts of drug possession and trafficking. Pruitt was indicted on seven counts for conduct that occurred on March
18, 2009. The first, third, and sixth counts alleged possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). The second count alleged trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1). The fourth and fifth counts alleged trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2). The seventh count alleged that Pruitt had possessed a weapon while under a disability. After a complete hearing held in accordance with Crim.R. 11, Hayden entered pleas of guilty to all counts. Prior to sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he had been promised a lenient sentence, and presenting affidavits from friends that attested to his innocence. The trial court conducted a full hearing and denied his motion. Pruitt now appeals.
Motion to Withdraw Pleas In his first assignment of error, Pruitt claims that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. But the trial court conducted a complete hearing on the matter, considering all the factors outlined in State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715, and concluded that it would not be appropriate to allow Pruitt to withdraw the plea. The record supports the trial court’s determination. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pruitt’s motion to withdraw his plea. Pruitt’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Allied Offenses In his second assignment of error, Pruitt claims that he was improperly
convicted of trafficking and possession charges where they were allied offenses of similar
import and, as such, should have been merged at sentencing. We agree.
See State v.
Johnson
the trial court to allow the state to elect between counts one and two, counts three and four,
and counts five and six. See
State v. Whitfield
, 124 Ohio St. 3d 319,
Ineffective Assistance In his third assignment of error, Pruitt claims that he was afforded
ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney did not object to his being sentenced separately for allied offenses. In light of our disposition of his second assignment of error, this argument is moot.
Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and
this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with our disposition of the second assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded. C UNNINGHAM and F ISCHER JJ., concur.
Please Note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.