State v. RinehartState v. Rinehart
Decided: May 21, 2010
* * * * *
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Heather M. Baker and Jacqueline M. Kirian, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Eric J. Allen, for appellant.
* * * * *
HANDWORK, J.
{¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal from the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas which, on October 30, 2007, following a plea of no contest to a bill of information filed on October 18, 2007, found appellant, Timothy Rinehart, guilty of one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of
{¶ 2} Appellant timely appealed the decision of the trial court and raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶ 3} “1. The bill of information fails to comport with the constitutional requirements of notice under the Fifth Amendment made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment and the Ohio State Supreme Court case of State v. Colon.
{¶ 4} “2. The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 5} “3. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the sixth amendment to the federal constitution made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment by failing to request discovery prior to a plea in this matter.
{¶ 7} As we find the outcome of appellant‘s second assignment of error is dispositive of his other assignments of error, we will consider it first. Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea and that he should have been afforded a hearing on his motion.
{¶ 8} Relying on State v. Davis (Jan. 5, 2001), 2d Dist. No. 18172, and State v. Anderson (Nov. 20, 1998), 2d Dist. No. 17040, the state argues that “[a]lthough a hearing is generally required for a presentence
{¶ 10} In this case, appellant‘s motion to withdraw his plea was made prior to sentencing. The general rule is that “a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted.” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 527. Nevertheless, an offender has no absolute right to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and, thus, the final decision is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. In reviewing a trial court‘s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, we are required to weigh a number of non-exhaustive factors to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea. State v. Baumgartner, 6th Dist. No. E-07-034, 2008-Ohio-5794, ¶ 13. However, because the trial court failed to conduct a hearing on appellant‘s
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on appellant‘s presentence motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant‘s second assignment of error, therefore, is found well-taken.
{¶ 12} Having determined that this case must be remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing prior to ruling on appellant‘s
{¶ 13} On consideration whereof, this court finds that appellant was prejudiced by the trial court‘s failure to conduct a hearing on appellant‘s presentence motion to withdraw his plea. The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. This matter is remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing on appellant‘s motion and to proceed with the case thereafter. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J.
_______________________________
Keila D. Cosme, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.