[Cite as State v. Campbell, 2014-Ohio-2823.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DANIEL J. CAMPBELL : Case No. 13-CA-57 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

 Pleas, Case No. 2012-CR-0193 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 25, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOCELYN S. KELLY SCOTT P. WOOD 

239 West Main Street 144 East Main Street 

Suite 101 P.O. Box 667 

Lancaster, OH 43130 Lancaster, OH 43130 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 2 

Farmer, P.J. 

{¶1} On May 4, 2012, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted appellant, 

Daniel Campbell, on two counts of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02. Said charges 

arose from an incident involving the theft of merchandise at a Walmart. After appellant 

was stopped and questioned, he pulled out a knife and fled the scene. 

{¶2} On June 27, 2012, appellant filed a motion to determine competency to 

stand trial. A psychiatric evaluation was ordered. Following a hearing wherein the 

evaluation was stipulated to, the trial court found appellant was competent to stand trial. 

See, Entry filed August 29, 2012. 

{¶3} On December 4, 2012, appellant pled guilty to one of the robbery counts 

and the remaining count was dismissed. 

{¶4} On December 17, 2012, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea 

pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. A hearing was held on January 31, 2013. By journal entry 

filed March 20, 2013, the trial court denied the motion. 

{¶5} After retaining new counsel, appellant filed a second motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea on May 14, 2013. A hearing was held on June 21, 2013. By journal entry 

filed July 9, 2013, the trial court again denied the motion. 

{¶6} By judgment entry filed August 9, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant 

to three years in prison. 

{¶7} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 3 

I 

{¶8} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN OVERRULING 

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO 

SENTENCING." 

I 

{¶9} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motions to withdraw 

his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 made prior to sentencing. We disagree. 

{¶10} 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." "A defendant does not 

have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing. A trial court must 

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

the withdrawal of the plea." State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992), paragraph one of 

the syllabus. "The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty 

plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Id. at paragraph two of the 

syllabus. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's 

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law 

or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). 

{¶11} In State v. McNeil, 146 Ohio App.3d 173, 175-176 (1st Dist.2001), our 

brethren from the First District explained the following: 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 4 

It is well established that, even though a defendant does not have 

an absolute right to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing, a presentence 

motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be "freely and liberally 

granted."***Although such a motion is to be treated liberally, the trial 

court's decision is still ultimately one of discretion. In determining whether 

the trial court has properly exercised its discretion, this court is aided by 

the following factors: (1) whether the accused was represented by highly 

competent counsel, (2) whether the accused was given a full Crim.R. 11 

hearing before entering the plea, (3) whether a full hearing was held on 

the withdrawal motion, and (4) whether the trial court gave full and fair 

consideration to the motion.***In addition to these factors, there are other 

considerations, including (1) whether the motion was made within a 

reasonable time; (2) whether the motion set out specific reasons for the 

withdrawal; (3) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges 

and the possible penalties; and (4) whether the accused was perhaps not 

guilty or had a complete defense to the charges. (Footnotes omitted.) 

{¶12} Prior to sentencing, appellant filed two different motions to withdraw his 

guilty plea, one on December 17, 2012 with a hearing on January 31, 2013, and the 

second on May 14, 2013 with a hearing on June 21, 2013. 

{¶13} The first withdrawal motion claimed a "concern regarding the advice 

provided to him by counsel." At the hearing, defense counsel summarized appellant's 

reason for the motion as a post-plea conflict regarding appellant's assessment of the 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 5 

case versus defense counsel's assessment of the case, and appellant's belief that he 

would be acquitted after a trial. January 31, 2013 T. at 5, 7. Defense counsel explained 

he disagreed with appellant's belief of the potential outcome. Id. at 9. Appellant did not 

dispute or challenge the Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Id. The state argued there is a videotape 

of appellant unloading over $200 worth of merchandise which was hidden on his 

person, and pulling a knife on the loss prevention officer and fleeing the scene. Id. at 

13-14, 17. Appellant's vehicle and license plate number are also on videotape. Id. at 

14, 17. Employees described and identified appellant. Id. at 14. The state argued the 

real reason for the motion was appellant's "cold feet," "change of heart," and his 

awareness of the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 16, 18. 

{¶14} In its March 20, 2013 journal entry denying this motion, the trial court 

provided a detailed decision, outlining appellant's arguments and addressing numerous 

factors: 

The Defendant's reason for withdrawing his pleas is "...Mr. 

Campbell's concern regarding the advice provided to him by counsel." 

Motion to Withdrawal plea 12/17/2012. At defense counsel's request, the 

Defendant sent defense counsel a written request to withdraw his plea. 

The request was made December 13, 2012 indicating that "...he, (the 

Defendant) wished to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. Upon further 

reflection, the Defendant disagreed with counsel's advice concerning the 

strengths or weaknesses of a defense to the charges and believes he is 

not guilty of the charges." Defendant's Reply filed January 11, 2012. "The 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 6 

Defendant also has indicated that he now disagrees with the advice of 

counsel as to the availability of defenses to the charges and believes that 

he is not guilty." Defendant's Reply filed January 11, 2013. 

The Court has reviewed the recording of the Defendant's plea 

hearing held on December 4, 2012. 

In State v. Shelton, 2012-Ohio-4482 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.) the Court of 

Appeals set out some factors for a court to consider in determining 

whether to grant a defendant's request to withdraw a plea prior to 

sentencing. Those factors and this court's attention to those factors are 

set forth as follows: 

1. Will vacating the plea prejudice the prosecution? There is no 

evidence that the prosecution would be prejudiced. 

2. Was the Defendant represented by highly competent counsel? 

The Defendant's attorney has had many years of experience representing 

people in juvenile, misdemeanor, and felony cases. The attorney, in this 

court's opinion, is highly qualified. 

3. Was the Defendant given a full Crim. R. 11 hearing? Yes, the 

court has reviewed the recording of the hearing. The Defendant 

acknowledged that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation, and 

that the attorney was able to answer, to the Defendant's satisfaction, 

questions, if any, the Defendant had about the plea paperwork. Based on 

the colloquy, the court was convinced that the Defendant knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea. There is nothing about the 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 7 

plea hearing that would alert anyone that the Defendant was struggling 

with the advice given to him by counsel, or with his decision to plead 

guilty. 

4. Has the court given full and fair consideration to the motion? 

Yes. The Defendant filed his Motion to Withdrawal Plea on December 17, 

2012. On January 11, 2013, the Defendant filed a second pleading: Reply 

to State's Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Plea. 

The court denied defense counsel's request to withdraw as counsel. An 

oral hearing was held on January 13, 2013 on the Defendant's Motion to 

Withdrawal Plea. This Journal Entry reflects the court's review of all 

pleadings and consideration of the Defendant's arguments at the oral 

hearing. 

5. Was the timing of the motion reasonable? Yes, the Defendant 

promptly filed his motion. 

6. What are the reasons for the motion? The stated reasons are 

that the Defendant is not satisfied with his attorney's advice as to the 

availability of defenses, and the Defendant believes that he is not guilty, 

although the details of these reasons are vague. 

7. What are the reasons for the motion? As stated above, the 

details of the reasons are vague. After considering the plea hearing and 

there being no indication at the time of the plea hearing that the Defendant 

was not satisfied with his attorney's representation and his (the 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 8 

Defendant's) decision to plead guilty, the Defendant simply appears to 

have changed his mind about pleading guilty. 

8. Did the Defendant understand the nature of the charge and the 

potential sentence? As stated above, the Defendant's Netcare Forensic 

Center competency report and a review of the plea colloquy reveal that 

the Defendant understood the nature of the charge and potential range of 

sentence. 

9. Is the Defendant perhaps not guilty of the crime or does he have 

a complete defense to the crime? The alleged facts are, according to the 

State, on Walmart surveillance video. Further, after leaving the store with 

shoplifted merchandise, two Walmart security officers had face-to-face 

contact with the Defendant when he allegedly drew a knife on them. The 

Defendant had raised his competency as an issue. However, as the 

psychological report clearly indicates, and as this court found, the 

Defendant is competent to stand trial. While competent defense counsel 

may be able to make some arguments for acquittal to a jury, the weight of 

the evidence appears to be in favor of the State. Certainly, there seems to 

be no "complete defense to the crime". 

The evidence and arguments before the court as well as the 

recorded court proceedings demonstrate that the Defendant's plea was 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 9 

{¶15} In his second withdrawal motion, appellant claimed he "did not have 

effective assistance of counsel in making the decision to change his plea." At the 

hearing, appellant testified, stating he met with his first counsel six or seven times and 

they discussed the evidence against him and the available defenses. June 21, 2013 T. 

at 8. His counsel advised him to plead guilty to one count of robbery, even though up 

until then, appellant wanted a jury trial because he felt he was not guilty. Id. at 8-11. 

Appellant believed the knife he used was not a deadly weapon; however, he trusted his 

counsel's advice and changed his plea. Id. at 12-13. Appellant changed his mind the 

day after the plea hearing after calling "a police station" and being informed that a knife 

was not a deadly weapon. Id. at 16-17. Appellant offered the following explanation 

about his guilty plea (Id. at 20-21): 

Q. So Daniel, if you had to summarize as to why you entered a plea 

of guilty on December 4th to robbery, when you yourself felt you were not 

guilty, can you explain to the Court why you did that? 

A. That I relied on the advice of Mr. Fields, and contrary to what I 

had looked up, because I knew that Mr. Fields knew what he was doing 

and that I could have probably been making a mistake, and my own 

research. 

Q. And then after you entered your plea, what was your reason for 

deciding that you wanted to withdraw that plea? 

A. My own research and the advice of others and my belief that I 

didn't commit robbery. 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 10 

Q. Do you still hold that belief today that you did not commit 

robbery? 

A. I do. 

Q. Is it your desire to have a jury decide whether or not you've 

committed robbery? 

A. Yes, it is. 

Q. And it's your desire to ask for the Court to withdraw your plea of 

guilty and allow you to have a jury trial; is that correct? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is there anything else you want the Court to consider with regard 

to this motion to withdraw your plea? 

A. That I believe the evidence is in my favor and that it'll show that I 

didn't commit robbery. 

{¶16} On cross-examination, appellant described the knife as a folding pocket 

knife with a 21⁄2 inch blade. Id. at 22. Appellant admitted to stealing over $200 worth of 

merchandise, being stopped by a loss prevention officer, pulling the knife out, and 

fleeing the scene. Id. 23-25. Appellant claimed the loss prevention officer "assaulted" 

him and he was "acting in self-defense" to his being detained for the theft. Id. at 23, 27. 

Appellant conceded he discussed the defense of self-defense with his first attorney. Id. 

at 27. On redirect, appellant explained that after he unloaded all of the stolen 

merchandise, the manager wanted him to sign a "packet of papers" which he refused to 

do. Id. at 31. Appellant stated he was going to leave, whereupon the loss prevention 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 11 

officer grabbed his coat collar and would not permit him to leave. Id. at 31-32. 

Appellant stated he "became afraid" and pulled the knife out and escaped. Id. at 32. 

Again, the state argued the entire incident was on videotape. Id. at 49-50, 51, 52. 

{¶17} In its July 9, 2013 journal entry denying this motion, the trial court found 

the following: 

On June 21, 2013, a hearing was held which exceeded one hour 

and consisted of testimony by the Defendant and oral argument by 

Counsel. 

The testimony elicited from the Defendant revealed: The Defendant 

and his attorney had met on at least six occasions to discuss his case; 

The video of the event giving rise to the charge was given to the 

Defendant by his Counsel, Mr. Fields; The Defendant discussed his belief 

that he acted in self-defense with his Counsel, Mr. Fields; The Defendant 

described what happened at Wal-Mart that gave rise to the charge against 

him; The Doctor who evaluated the Defendant in this case advised the 

Defendant to trust his attorney, Mr. Fields; The Defendant's mother 

advised the Defendant to trust his attorney, Mr. Fields; The Defendant did 

trust the legal advice given to him by his Counsel, Mr. Fields; The 

Defendant called the Lancaster Police station and an unnamed person 

told him that the knife that he used during the incident was "not a deadly 

weapon"; The Defendant talked to his Counsel, Mr. Fields; The Defendant 

contacted Andrew Stevenson, Attorney-at-Law, and "he helped", but the 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 12 

Defendant had already discussed his plea with his Counsel, Mr. Fields; 

the Defendant did not sleep the night before the plea hearing as he had a 

stomach virus and was "throwing up"; The Defendant was taking "stomach 

medicine"; and The Defendant disagrees with the advice given by his 

Counsel, Mr. Fields. 

At the conclusion of the evidence, during rebuttal argument, 

Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Wood, stated, in part: "...to make the 

record clear, we are not arguing ineffective assistance of counsel," but that 

the Defendant disagreed with the advice given him by his attorney, Mr. 

Fields. 

*** 

The evidence and arguments before the court as well as the 

recorded court proceedings demonstrate that the Defendant's plea was 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, that the Defendant relied 

on the advice of Counsel, and that the Defendant simply changed his 

mind. There is no evidence, and now no claim, that there was ineffective 

assistance on the part of the Defendant's Counsel, Mr. Fields so the Court 

need not address that issue. 

{¶18} Appellant freely admitted to discussions with his first counsel about his 

available defenses, i.e., the knife was not a deadly weapon and self-defense, to seeing 

the videotape, and trusting his counsel's advice. June 21, 2013 T. at 8, 12, 26-27, 35, 

37. During the plea hearing and the Crim.R. 11 colloquy, appellant affirmed to the trial 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 13 

court that he was satisfied with his attorney, understood the possible penalties, and was 

not under the influence of any substances that affected his ability to think and 

understand. December 4, 2012 T. at 5-11. During the second motion to withdraw 

hearing, defense counsel explained appellant was not making the argument that he was 

under the influence of medication during the plea hearing and therefore his plea "wasn't 

a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver." June 21, 2013 T. at 58. 

{¶19} We concur with the trial court assessment that appellant's guilty plea was 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and appellant "simply changed his 

mind." There is no likelihood of an acquittal given that the entire incident is on 

videotape and appellant admitted to the theft, pulling the knife, and escaping. Appellant 

merely experienced a "change of heart" which was not based on any reasonable or 

legitimate reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. "It was within the trial court's 

province to determine whether appellant's reasons were reasonable and legitimate. We 

defer to the trial court's judgment in evaluating the 'good faith, credibility and weight' of 

appellant's motivation and assertions in entering and attempting to withdraw his plea." 

State v. Hamilton, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2008-0011, 2008-Ohio-6328, ¶ 54, citing 

Xie, supra.

{¶20} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

appellant's motions to withdraw his guilty plea. 

{¶21} The sole assignment of error is denied. 

 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-57 14 

{¶22} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Delaney, J. concur. 

 

 

SGF/sg 602