State v. RitchieState v. Ritchie
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 15, 2021
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Scott J. Friedman, for appellant.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Chad B. Ritchie (“Ritchie“) appeals from the denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On August 30, 2015, Olmsted Township police arrested Ritchie following an incident at his home. Ritchie and his then wife, Jill Ritchie (“Jill“), got into an argument when Jill suspected that Ritchie had been drinking. Jill hid the car keys so that Ritchie could not drive while intoxicated, and he became angry and left the house. Jill locked the doors, and a neighbor called the police when they observed Ritchie trying to kick in the front door and screaming obscenities. Before police arrived at the home, Ritchie went back inside the house through a rear window.
{¶ 3} When the police arrived, Jill came out of the front door, upset and crying and telling the officers that Ritchie was out of control. Officers entered the home and Ritchie began to scream at them to leave. While Ritchie continued to scream at the officers, they ordered Ritchie to place his hands behind his back. Ritchie refused and ultimately engaged in a physical struggle with the officers. During the struggle, several officers tried to restrain Ritchie and tased him multiple times. Ritchie continued to fight with the officers. One officer‘s report stated that Ritchie threw a glass jar at an officer, nearly striking the officer in the head. Another report stated that Ritchie gouged the officer‘s left eye with his fingers. After an extensive struggle, officers were finally able to handcuff Ritchie while he was laying on the ground. Upon being handcuffed, Ritchie intentionally spit blood at two officers and continued to yell obscenities at them.
{¶ 5} On September 4, 2015, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Ritchie for the foregoing incident on one count of domestic violence, two counts of assault against a police officer, two counts of endangering children, and one count of harassment by inmate. On January 19, 2016, Ritchie pleaded guilty to two counts of assault against a police officer, in violation of
{¶ 6} On September 6, 2016, Ritchie pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor OVI offense in Rocky River Municipal Court. As a result, on October 7, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on an alleged violation of community control sanctions. The court found Ritchie to be in violation of his community control and sentenced him to six days in jail. The court reiterated the terms of his community control and reminded him that any further violation could result in 36 months in prison.
{¶ 7} On June 15 and June 19, 2017, the court held a hearing on an alleged violation of his community control and found that Ritchie violated the terms of his community control a second time when a March 24, 2017 drug test was positive for
{¶ 8} On December 8, 2017, Olmsted Township police arrested Ritchie and he was charged with an OVI, endangering children, and numerous other offenses. The court held a probation violation hearing on December 18, 2017, and Ritchie admitted that he violated the terms of his community control. Following this third violation of his community control, the court sentenced Ritchie to 18 months in prison on each count of assault against a police officer, to be served consecutively, for a total of 36 months in prison.
{¶ 9} Between November 2018 and April 2019, Ritchie filed two motions for judicial release. Both motions were denied.
{¶ 10} On October 28, 2019, almost three years after entering his guilty plea, and almost two years into his three-year sentence, Ritchie filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Ritchie sought to withdraw his January 19, 2016 guilty plea to two counts of assault against a police officer. Ritchie‘s motion argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to properly review the evidence in his case with him prior to Ritchie‘s guilty plea. Ritchie‘s motion also argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the imposition of consecutive sentences for his violation of community control. In support of his motion, Ritchie attached police reports from his August 2015 arrest,
{¶ 11} On December 9, 2019, the state filed a brief in opposition to Ritchie‘s motion. On December 24, 2019, Ritchie filed additional documents in support of his motion, including an affidavit from himself and copies of correspondence between Ritchie and his trial counsel. On January 3, 2020, the court denied Ritchie‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.
{¶ 12} This appeal follows. Ritchie presents the following assignment of error for our review:
The trial court abused its discretion when it denied the Appellant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing.
Legal Analysis
{¶ 13} In his sole assignment of error, Ritchie argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Ritchie argues that because his motion was based on matters outside the record, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. According to Ritchie, his motion contained allegations that, if accepted as true, would require that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. We disagree.
{¶ 14}
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.
{¶ 15} Further, although
{¶ 16} Because the determination of whether a defendant has demonstrated manifest injustice is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, we review a trial court‘s decision on a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. Id., citing State v. Colon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104944, 2017-Ohio-8478, ¶ 7. An abuse of discretion occurs where a trial court‘s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 18} As an initial matter, we note that the consecutive-sentence argument Ritchie made in his motion is not a basis for withdrawing his guilty plea, and this argument was not addressed by Ritchie in this appeal. Therefore, our analysis will be limited to Ritchie‘s arguments regarding his trial counsel‘s alleged failure to investigate.
{¶ 19} Ritchie‘s argument in support of his motion is that the additional police reports, taser records, and eyewitness affidavits he attached to his motion support a different version of events than the single police report that Ritchie‘s counsel possessed when Ritchie pleaded guilty. According to Ritchie, his counsel‘s failure to investigate the discrepancies between his account of the incident and the various officers’ accounts amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel that should allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Further, Ritchie argues that because his motion raised matters that were outside of the trial court record that demonstrate that he was unable to fully review discovery in his case prior to pleading guilty, the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing.
{¶ 20} A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is waived by a guilty plea, except to the extent that the ineffective assistance of counsel caused the defendant‘s
{¶ 21} Ritchie‘s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea did not meet this burden. Ritchie‘s motion argued that there were discrepancies and falsehoods in the various police reports from his August 2015 arrest. Specifically, Ritchie asserts that officers deployed their tasers more than they initially stated, and that in general, the officers were significantly more aggressive toward Ritchie than the situation warranted. None of the alleged discrepancies demonstrate that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Further, a defendant‘s
{¶ 22} Our review of the record reveals that the trial court fully complied with
{¶ 23} Prior to pleading guilty in this case, Ritchie personally apologized to two of the arresting officers he assaulted. In a letter to the officers attached to the sentencing memorandum, Ritchie described his behavior as “abhorrent” and said that he was a “violent person” on August 30, 2015. At the sentencing hearing, Ritchie stated:
I‘d like to sincerely apologize for my conduct and fully accept responsibility as well as the consequences. I truly am sorry. I want to apologize to my wife and daughters for putting their safety in jeopardy on that fateful evening * * *. The man who stands before you is a far cry from that pathetic person who committed those crimes.
{¶ 24} This is insufficient to show that Ritchie received ineffective assistance of counsel that rendered his guilty plea less than knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. Because Ritchie has not demonstrated a manifest injustice that would permit him to withdraw his guilty plea three years after entering it, the trial court‘s denial of Ritchie‘s motion was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ritchie‘s motion without an evidentiary hearing. Ritchie‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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 common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR