[Cite as State v. Montgomery, 2017-Ohio-1414.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NOS. 2016-A-0057

 - vs - : and 2016-A-0058 

DOUGLAS L. MONTGOMERY, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2016 

CR 00081 and 2016 CR 00083. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 

44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Michael A. Hiener, P.O. Box 1, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant). 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Douglas L. Montgomery, appeals from the judgment 

of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, denying his Motions to Withdraw his 

guilty pleas. The issue to be determined by this court is whether the denial of a 

defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea is an abuse of discretion 

when the trial court allowed the defendant to state his reasons for withdrawal, relied on 

statements made at the plea hearing to support its decision to deny the motion, and did 
 2

not make a specific finding regarding the adequacy of the defendant’s attorney. For the 

following reasons, we affirm the decision of the lower court. 

{¶2} On March 2, 2016, in Ashtabula Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16 CR 

00081, Montgomery was indicted for Domestic Violence, a felony of the third degree, in 

violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4), and Criminal Damaging, a misdemeanor of the 

second degree, in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1). On the same date, in Case No. 2016 

CR 00083, he was indicted for Retaliation, a felony of the third degree, in violation of 

R.C. 2921.05(A). 

{¶3} A plea hearing for both cases was held on July 5, 2016. The State agreed 

that Montgomery would enter pleas of guilty to Domestic Violence and an amended 

charge of Attempted Retaliation and the remaining charge would be dismissed.1 

Written Pleas of Guilty signed by Montgomery indicated the maximum potential 

punishments and outlined the rights being waived by entering the pleas. 

{¶4} At the hearing, Montgomery stated that he understood his rights and had 

not been threatened or promised anything in exchange for his pleas, aside from a 

recommendation to the court to allow a personal recognizance bond. He indicated that 

he had sufficient time to discuss the case with his attorney, who answered all of 

Montgomery’s questions. When asked whether he was satisfied with counsel, he 

responded “so far, yes.” Montgomery indicated that he would plead “no contest,” and 

the court noted that the written pleas stated “guilty.” Montgomery changed his pleas to 

guilty, was asked if he was “sure” and responded affirmatively. 

 

1. Montgomery also had pending at that time a separate case, 2016 CR 00082, which the State agreed to 

dismiss under the plea agreement. 
 3

{¶5} The court inquired about the factual basis for the pleas. In relation to the 

Domestic Violence charge, Montgomery admitted to pushing the victim off of him but not 

hitting her. Regarding the Attempted Retaliation, he denied the allegation that he 

threatened a magistrate. The court reminded Montgomery that he sought to enter guilty 

pleas. Montgomery indicated that he had cancer and other concerns and felt this “was 

the best thing in my interest.” The State gave alternate versions of the events, stating 

that Montgomery punched the domestic violence victim and threatened to “F [a 

magistrate] up.” The court explained that it wanted to ensure Montgomery wished to 

enter his pleas in light of this discussion. Montgomery stated that he wished to proceed. 

The court accepted his guilty pleas and issued July 8, 2016 Judgment Entries 

memorializing this acceptance. 

{¶6} On September 9, 2016, Montgomery filed Motions to Withdraw his guilty 

pleas. 

{¶7} On the same date, the sentencing hearing was held. Prior to sentencing, 

the motions were addressed and Montgomery was asked to provide his reasons for 

seeking to withdraw his pleas. Montgomery explained that he was innocent and had not 

wanted to enter the pleas “to begin with.” He stated “I was told something totally 

different” when speaking with his attorney, although he did not further explain this 

statement. He reiterated that he was innocent and was talked into taking the pleas by 

counsel. The court noted that it had fully discussed the pleas with Montgomery, they 

were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered, and no grounds were 

demonstrated to withdraw the pleas. 
 4

{¶8} The court issued Judgment Entries of Sentence on September 13, 2016, 

finding that “the defendant has failed to establish good cause upon which to withdraw 

his plea.” Montgomery was sentenced to a prison term of 18 months for Attempted 

Retaliation, to be served concurrently with a sentence of 36 months for Domestic 

Violence. 

{¶9} Montgomery timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error: 

{¶10} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant when it denied his 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea.” 

{¶11} Montgomery argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his 

Motions to Withdraw his guilty pleas, since the trial court did not satisfy all of the factors 

found in State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980). 

{¶12} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a defendant may file a motion to withdraw a plea of 

guilty before sentence is imposed. A presentence motion to withdraw a plea “should be 

freely and liberally granted.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 

(1992). The Supreme Court has recognized that “[a] defendant does not have an 

absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing,” but “[a] trial court must 

conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for 

the withdrawal of the plea.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶13} “The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty 

plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Holin,

174 Ohio App.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6255, 880 N.E.2d 515, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.); State v. Bisson,

11th Dist. Portage No. 2012-P-0050, 2013-Ohio-2141, ¶ 23 (“since the determination of 
 5

a motion to withdraw lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, the scope of our 

appellate review is limited to an ‘abuse-of-discretion’ analysis”). 

{¶14} This court has applied the four-factor test set forth in Peterseim to 

determine whether a trial court has abused its discretion in denying a presentence 

motion to withdraw a plea. State v. Parham, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0017, 2012-

Ohio-2833, ¶ 19. Under Peterseim, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying 

a motion to withdraw a plea: “(1) where the accused is represented by highly competent 

counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, 

before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused 

is given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion, and (4) where the record 

reveals that the court gave full and fair consideration to the plea withdrawal request.” 

68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863, at paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶15} Montgomery does not contest the second factor, that there was a full 

hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11 before he entered his pleas. This hearing was thorough 

and fully addressed each of the rights Montgomery was giving up, with the court 

verifying that he understood these and was choosing to enter guilty pleas. Montgomery 

takes issue, however, with the remaining factors. 

{¶16} First, he contends that the trial court “failed to address whether [he] was 

represented by highly competent counsel.” With respect to this factor, courts have held 

that, “[g]enerally, a properly licensed attorney practicing in this state is presumed to be 

competent.” State v. Brandon, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2009-P-0071, 2010-Ohio-6251, ¶ 

19; State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 62. At the 

plea hearing, Montgomery confirmed that he did not have any problems with his 
 6

counsel; he was able to consult with counsel on multiple occasions; that counsel was 

able to address his questions; and no threats, promises or inducements were made in 

order to get him to plead guilty. While he contends that his attorney “talked him into 

taking a plea,” this is contrary to the representations he made at the plea hearing. 

While he also claimed that counsel was ineffective due to failure to raise speedy trial 

issues, this is not an argument he raises on appeal. Montgomery did not otherwise 

contend that counsel was incompetent or failed to advise him of his rights. The fact that 

he conveyed satisfaction with counsel at that time and provides no other grounds to 

rebut the presumption that counsel was effective supports a finding that counsel was 

competent. See State v. Field, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3010, 2012-Ohio-5221, 

¶ 14. Rather, it appears that Montgomery merely changed his mind, which does not 

justify withdrawal of his pleas. State v. Battersby, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-023, 

2008-Ohio-836, ¶ 59 (“[a] defendant is not entitled to withdraw his * * * plea merely 

because he has changed his mind”) (citation omitted).

{¶17} There is also no question that a hearing was held on the motion to 

withdraw his pleas, prior to sentencing. “Inviting and hearing oral arguments on a 

motion to withdraw a guilty plea at the sentencing hearing can constitute a full and fair 

hearing on that motion.” State v. Greenleaf, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2005-P-0017, 2006-

Ohio-4317, ¶ 78. Montgomery does not dispute that a hearing was held but instead 

argues he was only permitted to make a statement and the court did not inquire further 

into why he wished to withdraw the pleas. In his estimation, this was not an adequate 

and impartial hearing and no full and fair consideration was given to his motion. 
 7

{¶18} As to these issues, Montgomery was given an opportunity to explain the 

reasons he believed his pleas should be withdrawn. He was not interrupted or 

otherwise prevented from doing so. He asserted that he was innocent and that he was 

“talked into” entering the pleas by counsel. The court had the opportunity to consider 

these arguments and, as the court noted, it also considered the facts and circumstances 

that took place at the plea hearing. This allowed it to have a clear picture of the events 

that occurred, including that Montgomery was given opportunities not to plead at the 

original hearing when he made statements in support of his innocence and the 

foregoing statements that he was not coerced or otherwise induced into pleading guilty. 

{¶19} Montgomery emphasizes his assertion that he was “railroaded.” This was 

not supported by any evidence or allegations of what actions were taken to “railroad” 

him, other than that his attorney “talked him into” entering the pleas, which is contrary to 

his statements at the plea hearing. “[B]old assertions without evidentiary support simply 

should not merit the type of scrutiny that substantiated allegations would merit” in plea 

hearings. (Citations omitted.) State v. Robinson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2003-A0125, 2005-Ohio-5287, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Hall, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55289, 1989 

WL 42253, 1 (Apr. 27, 1989). 

{¶20} Montgomery cites State v. Bekesz, 75 Ohio App.3d 436, 599 N.E.2d 803 

(11th Dist.1991), in support of the proposition that he did not receive an adequate 

hearing and the motions were not given full and fair consideration. In Bekesz, prior to 

the sentencing hearing, the court did not allow the appellant to testify regarding his 

motion or allow him to present any argument in favor of his request to withdraw, 

repeatedly stating that motions could not be filed or pursued during that time. This was, 
 8

in essence, a refusal to consider appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Id. at 438-

440. The present case is distinguishable, since Montgomery was permitted to present 

argument in support of his Motions. State v. Kornet, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P0001, 2013-Ohio-3480, ¶ 36. Although Montgomery believes the court should have 

inquired further into his circumstances, he cites to no authority requiring the court to ask 

questions to help establish the merits of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. 

{¶21} Given the foregoing circumstances, the court provided Montgomery with 

both a complete and impartial hearing and full and fair consideration of the merits of his 

motion. See State v. Miller, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2009-P-0090, 2011-Ohio-1161, ¶ 29 

(the court’s decision to overrule the motion to withdraw a plea was fair and informed 

when a hearing was held at which the trial court heard the defendant’s allegations and 

considered them in light of the evidence and testimony presented). Consequently, all 

Peterseim factors were satisfied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Montgomery’s Motions to Withdraw his pleas. 

{¶22} The sole assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶23} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of 

Common Pleas, denying Montgomery’s Motions to Withdraw his guilty pleas, is 

affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.