[Cite as State v. Sheaffer, 2012-Ohio-2020.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsJAMES L. SHEAFFER 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 11 CA 15 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 11 CR 8 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 4, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

STEVE KNOWLING DAVID M. HUNTER 

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 244 West Main Street 

164 East Jackson Street Loudonville, Ohio 44842 

Millersburg, Ohio 44654 
Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 15 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant James L. Sheaffer appeals from the denial of his pre-sentence 

motion to withdraw guilty plea, subsequent to said plea on two counts of drug 

trafficking in the Court of Common Pleas, Holmes County. The relevant facts leading to 

this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} In February 2011, appellant was indicted on one count of Trafficking in a 

Schedule II Drug within the vicinity of a Juvenile (R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)), a felony of the 

third degree, and one count of Trafficking in a Schedule II Drug (R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)), a 

felony of the fourth degree.1

 At his arraignment on February 15, 2011, appellant 

entered a plea of not guilty to both charges and the matter was scheduled for trial on 

March 14, 2011. 

{¶3} Appellant filed a motion in limine on February 22, 2011 as to the 

introduction of certain audio-recorded evidence. After a hearing on February 28, 2011, 

the trial court sustained the motion in limine in part. 

{¶4} On March 3, 2011, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, entered a 

plea of guilty to both counts in the indictment, and he was found guilty on the record. 

{¶5} The matter was set for sentencing on June 8, 2011. However, appellant 

failed to appear on that date. The trial court thereupon issued a warrant for appellant’s 

arrest. 

{¶6} Appellant was arrested in July 2011. At his bond hearing, appellant’s 

counsel indicated appellant might withdraw his prior guilty plea. The trial court gave 

appellant one week to file his motion to withdraw plea, and the trial was scheduled for 

 

1

 Appellant was originally indicted in November 2010, but an indictment was re-filed 

about three months later under the present trial court case number. 
Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 15 3

August 22, 2011. A written motion to withdraw guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 was filed 

on July 15, 2011. 

{¶7} On July 19, 2011, the trial court, without conducting a hearing, initially 

granted appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. However, upon a motion for 

reconsideration filed by the State, the court conducted a hearing on August 3, 2011, 

following which it reconsidered its earlier decision and denied the motion to withdraw 

plea. 

{¶8} The trial court subsequently sentenced appellant to a prison term of two 

and one-half years. See Judgment Entry, August 3, 2011. 

{¶9} On August 31, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises 

the following sole Assignment of Error: 

{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF GUILTY WHEN THE SAME WAS MADE PRIOR TO 

SENTENCING.” 

I. 

{¶11} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in 

denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the two trafficking 

offenses. We disagree. 

{¶12} Unlike the “manifest injustice” standard governing a post-sentence motion, 

Crim.R. 32.1 has no specific guidelines for granting a presentence motion to withdraw 

a guilty plea. State v. Calloway, Hamilton App.No. C–040066, 2004–Ohio–5613, ¶ 11, 

citing State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 526, 584 N.E.2d 715. A presentence 

motion to withdraw a plea should be freely and liberally granted; however, the decision 
Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 15 4

is left to the trial court's sound discretion. Id., citing Xie at 526. Furthermore, a trial 

court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and 

legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea. Xie, supra. The court should examine 

whether the defendant was represented, whether the withdrawal will prejudice the 

prosecution, the timing of the motion, the reasons given for the withdrawal, the 

defendant's understanding of the charges and penalties, and the existence of a 

meritorious defense. State v. Graham, Holmes App.No. 04–CA–001, 2004–Ohio–2556, 

¶ 39, citing State v. Kimbrough (March 28, 1988), Stark App. No. CA–7363, and State 

v. Fish (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788. 

{¶13} The record in the case sub judice, which includes a transcript of the 

August 3, 2011 hearing, reveals that appellant argued on three main grounds in 

support of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion: (1) He had obtained witnesses who would allegedly 

testify that no juveniles were present at the pertinent transaction; (2) he had “new 

research and new evidence” to support an entrapment defense; and (3) he alleged that 

the State might withdraw its sentencing recommendation of two and one-half years in 

prison. See Tr., Aug. 3, 2011, at 2. 

{¶14} In regard to the latter ground, we note the State insisted that it had not and 

would not withdraw its joint sentencing recommendation. See Tr., Aug. 3, 2011, at 3. 

The record also indicates that appellant did not raise the claim of new witnesses and 

new evidence until July 2011, even though he had originally been indicted in November 

2010 and had failed to appear for sentencing in June 2011. A review of the original 

plea hearing transcript indicates that when appellant was asked by the judge about the 

element of the presence of children at the charged trafficking incident, appellant stated: 
Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 15 5

“I don’t dispute it, I just don’t remember.” Tr., March 3, 2011, at 13. Furthermore, this 

Court has recognized that “ *** the mere insertion of legally cognizable defenses does 

not impel the trial court to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea.” Kimbrough, supra, citing 

U.S. v. McKoy (D.C.Cir.1981), 645 F.2d 1037, and U.S. v. Barker (D.C.Cir.1975), 514 

F.2d 208. Accordingly, upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in overruling appellant's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

{¶15} Appellant's sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶16} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court 

of Common Pleas, Holmes County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Hoffman, P. J., and 

Farmer, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 

JWW/d 423 
Holmes County, Case No. 11 CA 15 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JAMES L. SHEAFFER : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11 CA 15 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Holmes County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES