IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Case No. 2:11-CR-00212 

Plaintiff, 

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

v. 

BARRY L. YOUST. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Deavers 

Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. For 

the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS 

Defendant moves to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d). In 

relevant part, a defendant may "withdraw a guilty plea ... after the court accepts the plea, but 

before it imposes sentence if ... the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the 

withdrawal. The Sixth Circuit directs the Court to consider seven factors in determining whether 

to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea: 

(1) The amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw 

it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for 

withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted 

or maintained his innocence; ( 4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the 

guilty plea; (5) the defendant's nature and background; (6) the degree to 

which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; 

and (7) potential of prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is 

granted. 

U.S. v. Benton, 639 F.3d 723, 727 (6th Cir. 2011), quoting U.S. v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1171, 1184 

(6th Cir. 1994). 

Case: 2:11-cr-00212-ALM-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/01/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Here, the factor which primarily cuts against Defendant is the passage of time since the 

entry of his guilty plea, originally entered on October 25, 2011. Despite this lengthy delay, the 

other factors weigh in favor of allowing Defendant to withdraw his plea. Particularly important 

is the fact that the delay has apparently not prejudiced the government's position, as the 

government does not oppose Defendant's Motion. Furthermore, Defendant has complied with 

all conditions of his pretrial release during the intervening period. 

As for the circumstances surrounding the plea and Defendant's failure to withdraw it 

earlier, the Court notes Defendant's wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer late in 2010. She 

requires ongoing care and financial support. The Defendant has also maintained his innocence. 

In fact, his primary reason for withdrawing the plea appears to be that he recently bolstered 

evidentiary support for his innocence by "passing" a polygraph test regarding the allegations. A 

certified polygraphist, who routinely conducts polygraph tests for the Columbus Police 

Department, administered the test. 

The Court also notes Defendant's education is limited to high school degree and he has 

not previously been detained, arrested, or interrogated in connection with any crime. Suffice to 

say, he lacks a sophisticated understanding of the criminal justice system. Thus, on balance, the 

factors weigh heavily in favor of allowing Defendant to withdraw his plea, which the 

government does not oppose. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant's plea of 

guilty is, hereby, withdrawn. The schedule for trial will be forthcoming. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00212-ALM-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/01/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
. ' 

sf Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENONL.MARBLEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: October 1, 2012 

Case: 2:11-cr-00212-ALM-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/01/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>