State v. Searles, 08ca0006 (5-4-2009)
This text of 2009 Ohio 2688 (State v. Searles, 08ca0006 (5-4-2009)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} On December 11, 2001, appellant pled guilty to the weapons count. The remaining counts were scheduled for a jury trial which commenced on December 18, 2001. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. Following sentencing, appellant filed an appeal with this court. This court reversed appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial based upon improperly admitted evidence. See, State v. Searles, Morgan App. No. 02 CA 4, 2003-Ohio-3498.
{¶ 3} Subsequent to the reversal and remand, appellant pled guilty on May 4, 2004 pursuant to a plea agreement to the one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and to an amended count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. By sentencing entry filed May 7, 2004, the trial court sentenced appellant per the plea agreement to five years on each count, to be served consecutively, and classified appellant as a sexual predator.
{¶ 4} On May 31, 2005, appellant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to Crim. R. 32.1 and/or motion for postconviction relief pursuant to new constitutional ruling, citingBlakely v. Washington (2004),
{¶ 5} On September 19, 2008, appellant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration in the pleas agreement and/or the sentencing and sexual classification, seeking to be "resentenced as a first time offender." The basis of appellant's motion was a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Crim. R. 32.1. By journal entry filed October 2, 2008, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 9} Crim. R. 32.1 governs withdrawal of guilty plea and states, "[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." The right to withdraw a plea is not absolute and a trial court's decision on the issue is governed by the abuse *Page 4
of discretion standard. State v. Smith (1977),
{¶ 10} In his appellate brief, appellant concedes he pled guilty via a negotiated plea, and said plea did not violate any state statute. However, appellant takes issue with the fact that the trial court "attached a sexual violent predator specification, and enhanced the appellant's sentence to a ten year total prison sentence."
{¶ 11} Appellant pled guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, both felonies of the third degree. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 12} "The Prosecuting Attorney stated the plea agreement as follows:
{¶ 13} "(1) Plea to two (2) counts in violation of O.R.C. §
{¶ 14} "(2) Recommend 5 years prison on each count." *Page 5
{¶ 15} Upon review, we concur with the trial court's denial of appellant's Crim. R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea because there was no showing of any manifest injustice to substantiate the motion.
{¶ 16} The sole assignment of error is denied.
{¶ 17} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Morgan County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.
Farmer, P.J. Gwin, J. and Wise, J. concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 Ohio 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-searles-08ca0006-5-4-2009-ohioctapp-2009.