State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Michаel Greer, 500 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee
George A. Katchmer, 108 Dayton Street, Suite D, Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387, for defendant appellant
BRESSLER, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Lindsey M. Williams, apрeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶2} Appеllant pled guilty and was sentenced in November 2007 on numerous criminal offenses related to an incident involving a police stand-off, in which more than 100 rounds were reportedly fired by appellant, followed by a police chase. Appellant filed a direct appeal and this court affirmed his conviсtions and sentence in State v. Williams, Warren App. No. CA2007-12-136, 2009-Ohio-435 (Williams I). Appellant subsequently filed a
{¶3} On March 1, 2010, while his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was still pending, appellant filed an
{¶4} In this appeal, appellant raises two assignments of error.
{¶5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶6} “A TRIAL COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN A
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶8} “A PRE-SENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA [sic] MUST BE FREELY
{¶9} In this appeal, appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea because his appеal to the Ohio Supreme Court was still pending at the time the trial court overruled that motion. The state agrees with this portion of appellant‘s argument. However, appellant also argues that this mattеr should be remanded for resentencing and for the trial court to reconsider his second motion to withdrаw his guilty plea.
{¶10}
{¶11} A trial court‘s deсision regarding a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Rose, Butler App. No. CA2010-03-059, 2010-Ohio-5669, ¶15; Williams II, 2009-Ohio-6240 at ¶13. An abuse of discretion implies that the court‘s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment. Id.; State v. Pointer, Fayette App. No. CA2010-03-003, 2010-Ohio-5067, ¶9. When applying the abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
{¶12} Although a trial court is permitted to consider a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a motion once a higher court has affirmed the trial court‘s judgmеnt on appeal. Id.; State v. Allen, Warren App. No. CA2006-01-001, 2006-Ohio-5990, ¶12.
{¶13} Because this court affirmed appellant‘s conviction and sentence in Williams I, the trial court was without jurisdiction to decide appellant‘s motion to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on appellant‘s motion. However, the trial court‘s error is harmless, as the trial court should have simply dismissed appellant‘s motion rather than overruling it.
{¶14} In addition, appellant is misguided in his assertion that the trial court regained jurisdiction to entertain such a motion once the Ohio Suprеme Court denied jurisdiction to hear his appeal of this court‘s decision. A trial court loses jurisdiction tо decide such a motion once an appeal is taken, “and, absent a remand, it does not regain jurisdiction subsequent to the Court of Appeals’ decision.” Special Prosecutors, 55 Ohio St.2d at 97.
{¶15} Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to decide the motion that is the subject of this appeal, the trial court‘s judgment is null and void. “‘The effеct of determining that a judgment is void is well established. It is as though such proceedings had never occurred; the judgment is a mere nullity and the parties are in the same position as if there had been no judgment.‘” State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, ¶12, quoting Romito v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 266, 267-268. As this court does not have jurisdiction to review void orders, we are unable to reach the merits of appellant‘s arguments on appeal. See Lyttle v. State, Butler App. No. CA2010-04-089, 2010-Ohio-6277, ¶17.
{¶16} This appeal is dismissed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.