State v. Martin

2012 Ohio 4394

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 24, 2012·No. 11CA116·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Martin, 2012-Ohio-4394.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 11CA0116 CARLOS MARTIN

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 09 CR 0162

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 24, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JAMES J. MAYER, JR. BRIAN G. JONES PROSECUTING ATTORNEY The Law Office of Brian Jones RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 2211 U.S. Higway 23 North Delaware, Ohio 43015 BY: JILL M. COCHRAN Assistant Richland County Prosecutor 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902 Richland County, Case No. 11CA0116 2

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Carlos Martin appeals the November 8, 2011 Order

entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, which overruled his motion to

withdraw guilty plea. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On July 15, 2008, while Appellant was an inmate at the Richland County

Correction Institution, his girlfriend, Rochelle Carter, brought marijuana into the facility

with the intent to deliver the same to Appellant during an inmate visitation. Prison

officials stopped Carter prior to the visit and found eight balloons filled with marijuana

concealed in her mouth and bra. Carter admitted she had engaged in this behavior on

three other occasions, and indicated the drugs had been given to her by Appellant’s

brother.

{¶3} On March 6, 2009, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on

one count of aiding and abetting illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse on grounds of a

detention facility, in violation of R.C. 2921.39(A)(2), a felony of the third degree.

Appellant appeared for arraignment on April 2, 2009, and entered a plea of not guilty to

the charge. Although the trial court originally scheduled the matter for jury trial on July

9, 2009, the trial was continued and rescheduled at least seven times due to the trial

court’s trial schedule as well as the unavailability of witnesses for both sides, with the

final trial date being June 17, 2010.

{¶4} During jury voir dire, Attorney Edward LaRue, Appellant’s trial counsel,

approached the bench and informed the trial court Appellant wished to enter a guilty

plea. The trial court retired to chambers with the prosecutor, Attorney LaRue, and Richland County, Case No. 11CA0116 3

Appellant. The trial court commenced a Crim. R. 11 colloquy with Appellant. Appellant

advised the trial court he had taken the prescription drug, Paxil, that morning, but, after

further discussion, indicated the drug did not affect his ability to think clearly. The trial

court noted Appellant did not appear to be under the influence. The trial court

completed the Crim. R. 11 colloquy then provided Appellant and his attorney with an

opportunity to review the change of plea form. Appellant ultimately executed the

change of plea form and entered a plea of guilty. The trial court accepted the plea,

found Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to a four year term of incarceration.

Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

{¶5} On October 10, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Therein, Appellant asserted he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea as such

was not made knowingly and intelligently due to several adverse circumstances at the

time of the plea, including the fact he had taken a prescription medication with the

potential side effect of depression-like symptoms.

{¶6} Via Judgment Entry filed November 8, 2011, the trial court overruled

Appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court found Appellant failed to

demonstrate a manifest injustice would occur should he not be permitted to withdraw his

plea. The trial court cited extensive portions of the change of plea hearing to establish

the flaws of Appellant’s arguments.

{¶7} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole

assignment of error: Richland County, Case No. 11CA0116 4

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE

OF CARLOS MARTIN WHEN IT OVERRULED HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY

PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING.”

{¶9} Herein, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in

overruling his motion to withdraw guilty plea without a hearing because he was taking a

prescription medication which affected his ability to make a knowing and voluntary plea.

We disagree.

{¶10} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is governed by the standards set forth in

Crim.R. 32.1, which provides:

“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.”

{¶11} “Manifest injustice relates to some fundamental flaw in the proceedings

which result[s] in a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due

process.” State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 03AP–1214, 2004–Ohio–6123, ¶ 5. “ ‘[I]t is

clear that under such standard, a postsentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in

extraordinary cases.’ “ State v. Gripper, 10th Dist. No. 10AP–1186, 2011–Ohio–3656, ¶

7, quoting State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 (1977). A defendant seeking to

withdraw a post-sentence guilty plea bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice

based on specific facts either contained in the record or supplied through affidavits

attached to the motion. State v. Orris, 10th Dist. No. 07AP–390, 2007–Ohio–6499. Richland County, Case No. 11CA0116 5

{¶12} A trial court is not automatically required to hold a hearing on a post-

sentence motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. A hearing must only be held if the facts

alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require that the defendant be allowed

to withdraw the plea. Williams, supra at ¶ 6, citing State v. Kent, 10th Dist. No. 03AP–

722, 2004–Ohio–2129, ¶ 8.

{¶13} A trial court's decision to deny a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea

of guilty and the decision whether to hold a hearing on the motion are subject to review

for abuse of discretion. Smith, supra. “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more

than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

{¶14} In deciding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion, the good faith, weight, and credibility of

a moving party's assertions are a matter for resolution by the trial court. Smith, supra.

Thus, the trial court has great discretion in assessing the credibility of affidavits used to

support a Crim.R. 32.1 motion. State v. Roberts, 8th Dist. No. 93439, 2010–Ohio–1436.

We note Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was filed almost 16 months after

his sentencing. Although not dispositive on its own, “[a]n undue delay between the

occurrence of the alleged cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea and the filing of a motion

under Crim.R. 32.1 is a factor adversely affecting the credibility of the movant and

militating against the granting of the motion.” Smith, supra at paragraph three of the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI