State v. WeaverState v. Weaver
Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. Weaver
,
COURT OF APPEALS
HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 11CA023 TERRA WEAVER nka :
TERRA KAMP :
:
Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Holmes County Municipal
Court, Case No. 98-CRB-173 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 18, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: For Appellee: STEVEN KNOWLING JERRY S. PACKARD HOLMES COUNTY PROSECUTOR Logee, Hostetler, Stutzman, & Lehman 164 E. Jackson Street 2171 Eagle Pass Millersburg, OH 44654 Wоoster, OH 44691-5320 Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant State of Ohio appeals from the November 28, 2011 judgment entry of the Holmes County Municipal Court granting appellee’s motion to withdraw hеr guilty plea to one count of domestic violence entered April 24, 1998. Appellee is Terra Kamp, formerly known as Terra Weaver.
FACTS [1] AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On April 20, 1998, appellee was charged by complaint with one count of
domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree pursuant to
{¶3} We note the record contains a document, dated April 24, 1998, stating:
“I, Terra L. Weaver, have been offered the opportunity to apply for legal services on
my behalf and do hereby decline the offer.” No record of any
{¶4} On October 18, 2011, appellee moved to withdraw her guilty plea “on the basis that while [appellee] waived her right to counsel at the time of entering her plea, [appellеe] never discussed this matter with an attorney or sought the advice of counsel prior to her entry of a plea and consequently [appellee] was not fully awаre of all the consequences of entering a plea to the charge of Domestic Violence. * * *.” *3 {¶5} The trial court scheduled an oral hearing. The following disсussion took place:
* * *.
Judge: It is my understanding that there is a problem with her conviction and employment.
[Defense counsel]: It, You Honor, she has been offered employment and has been employed but, and it is kind of interesting how, you know, she is able to go through school, in fact she has, she has got her license here that she is a registered nurse. So it is kind of interesting that the nursing school can take your money based on any background but some issues have come up when she actually went to work for a particular entity that, like once she started working they said no it is not a problem and then they came back and… Judge: Where are you working now?
[Appellee]: I was working for a nursing home fаcility and when they, when you fill out an application for work of course I have to disclose that I have this misdemeanor from my past and because, because оf the nature, because of the domestic violence on the BCI and FBI came back, then they came and said you can’t work here until you have this cleared up.
[Dеfense counsel]: But you actually worked for them for a little bit, right? [Appellant]: I did for several weeks, so…
Judge: And they said you couldn’t work?
[Defense counsel]: Yes. They said it was not a problem then they said it was a problem.
[Appellant]: And I am finding that.
Judge: OK, I will take it under advisement and get an answer out next week. * * *.
{¶6} Appellant raised a number of objections to appellee’s motion at the oral hearing. Appellant argued withdrawal of the plea is barred by res judicata, that appellee should have raised the issue upon direct appeal, and that appellant would be significantly prejudiced in its efforts to prosecute the domestic violence complaint 13 years later. Appellant further noted that appellee asserted no defense on the merits, failed to allege her no-contest plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and failed to establish аny manifest injustice which would permit the trial court to allow her to withdraw her plea.
{¶7} The trial court granted appellee’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea on November 28, 2011.
{¶8} On December 9, 2011, appellant sought leave to appeal the trial court’s decision, and we granted leave on January 12, 2012.
{¶9} Appellant now аppeals from the trial court’s entry permitting appellee to withdraw her plea.
{¶10} Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶11} “I. THE COURT’S NOVEMBER 28, 2011 JUDGMENT ENTRY GRATING APPELLEE’S ‘MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA’ OF APRIL 24, 1998 WAS IMPROPERLY GRANTED, CONTRARY TO LAW AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.”
I.
{¶1} Appellant asserts in its sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting appellee to withdraw her plea of no contest, and we agree.
{¶2}
{¶3} Appellant points to the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals
in Xenia v. Jones , in which the court defined a manifest injustice is defined as “a clear
or openly unjust act” that involves “extraordinary circumstances.” 2nd Dist. No. 07-
*6
CA-104,
{¶4} Appellate review of a trial court’s decision under
{¶5} The effect of the no-contest plea upon appellee’s employment is not
relevant to the
{¶6} We followed this rationale in State v. Jordon , in which we held that
appellant’s mistaken belief that he would be able to keep his state pest control license
if he pled guilty to receiving stolen property was irrelevant to the determination of
whether he entered his plea appropriately. 5th Dist. No. CT2007-0024, 2007-Ohio-
6795. See also , Xenia v. Jones , supra,
{¶7} In the instant case, the sole reason presented by appellee for withdrawal of her plea, thirteen years after the fact, is she didn’t understand the consequences of her plea because her employment is now jeopardized. This issue is irrelevant to whether appellee’s plea was entered appropriately.
{¶8} We find the trial court abused its discretion in permitting appellee to withdraw her pleа. On the record before us, appellee failed to establish that a manifest injustice occurred. The resulting prejudice to appellant if the plea is withdrawn аfter 13 years, when appellee has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances that would substantiate such recourse, leads us to conclude the trial court abused its discretion.
{¶9} In light of the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s decision of November 28, 2011, and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY HON. W. SCOTT GWIN HON. JOHN W. WISE PAD:kgb
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
TERRA WEAVER nka :
TERRA KAMP :
: Case No. 11CA023 Defendant-Appellee :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the Holmes County Municipal Court is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs assessed to Appellee. HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY HON. W. SCOTT GWIN HON. JOHN W. WISE
Notes
[1] The facts of the domestic violence conviction underlying this appeal are not in the record before us and are not necessary to the disposition of this appeal.