 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Baker3/9/2005
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
{ } Defendant, John Baker, appeals from the decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.
{ } Defendant was indicted on June 13, 2002, for two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A), two counts of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of R.C. 2903.04(B), one count of aggravated vehicular assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(1), one count of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), and one count of driving outside the lanes of travel/ weaving, a violation of R.C. 4511.25.
{ } On November 13, 2002, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of aggravated vehicular assault, and one count of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The remaining charges were dismissed. On December 16, 2002, Defendant was sentenced to eight years in prison on each of the first two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, two years on count five, aggravated vehicular assault; and six months in the Summit County Jail on count six, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The time imposed on counts one, two and six was to be served concurrently, consecutive to the time imposed on count five.
{ } On April 2, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and requested an evidentiary hearing on that motion. On August 30, 2004, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas denied Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and held that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
"The trial court abused its discretion by denying [Defendant's] Motion to Withdraw his Plea where the evidence showed the plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and there is reasonable probability that but for the ineffective assistance of counsel he would not have pled guilty."
{ } In his first assignment of error, Defendant maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea since he entered that plea involuntarily and unknowingly, and he would have not entered a guilty plea but for the ineffective assistance he received from his counsel. We find Defendant's contentions meritless.
{ } It is within the trial court's sound discretion to determine whether there is a legitimate and reasonable basis for the withdrawal of a guilty plea, and absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision on the matter must be affirmed. State v. Remines (Feb. 25, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 97CA006700, at 3, citing State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it implies a decision that is "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157.
{ } Crim.R. 32.1 dictates when a motion to withdraw a guilty plea or no contest plea may be made. It provides that the motion "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." Crim.R. 32.1.
{ } A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea must demonstrate a manifest injustice. State v. Smi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|