[Cite as State v. Goodin, 2016-Ohio-2889.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

PERRY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsTAYVA J. GOODIN 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 15-CA-00016 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Perry County Common 

Pleas Court, Case No. 14-CR-0070 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 4, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOSEPH A. FLAUTT VALERIE K. WIGGINS 

Perry County Prosecuting Attorney 107 S. High Street 

 New Lexington, Ohio 43764 

DAVID L. ROWLAND 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

111 N. High Street 

P.O. Box 569 

New Lexington, Ohio 43764 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tayva J. Goodin appeals the June 23, 2015 Judgment 

Entry entered by the Perry County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state 

of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On May 20, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of 

complicity to illegal manufacture of drugs or cultivation of marijuana, a felony of the 

second degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) and 2925.04(A) and (C)(3)(a); and one 

count of complicity to aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, in 

violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) and 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(1)(a). As a result of Appellant’s 

plea, the state of Ohio agreed to nolle prosequi the remaining two counts in the indictment. 

The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea of guilty, ordered a presentence investigation 

and revoked Appellant’s bail. 

{¶3} On June 16, 2015, Appellant appeared at a sentencing hearing and moved 

the trial court to withdraw her plea of guilty. 

{¶4} On June 19, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s motion 

to withdraw plea. At the hearing, the trial court denied the motion and proceeded to 

sentence Appellant. 

{¶5} The trial court entered judgment of sentence via Termination Judgment 

Entry on June 23, 2015. 

 

1 A full rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for resolution of this appeal. 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 3

{¶6} Appellant filed a delayed notice of appeal on September 2, 2015. This Court 

granted the motion for delayed appeal via Judgment Entry of September 30, 2015. 

{¶7} Appellant assigns as error, 

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA OF GUILTY. 

{¶9} “II. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.” 

I. 

{¶10} In the first assigned error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying 

her motion to withdraw plea. 

{¶11} Crim.R. 32.1 governs withdrawal of guilty pleas 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. 

{¶12} “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, 584 N.E.2d 715 (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 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 4

and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 

450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

{¶13} In State v. McNeil, 146 Ohio App.3d 173, 175–176, 765 N.E.2d 884, the 

First District held, 

 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.) 

{¶14} At the May 20, 2015 Plea Hearing, the following exchange occurred on the 

record, 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 5

 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Ms. Goodin, are you under the 

influence of any intoxicants, drugs, or other mind-affecting substances? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Not other than my medication, no. 

 THE COURT: And that was prescribed medication from you doctor? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

 THE COURT: Okay. Is that affecting your ability to change your plea 

today? 

 THE DEFENDANT: No. 

 THE COURT: Okay. It is my understanding that you wish to withdraw 

your former plea of not guilty for the crimes which you stand charged. 

Having discussed this matter with your attorney, are you satisfied with her 

advice and representation of you? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

May 20, 2015 Plea Hearing Tr. at 4. 

{¶15} On June 16, 2015, Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing 

and indicated she wished to withdraw her plea of guilty. The following exchange took 

place: 

 THE COURT: Why do you want to waive your—or withdraw your 

former plea? 

 THE DEFENDANT: I don’t believe that I should have pled guilty to 

that. I felt I was more pressured in to [sic] that under -- sorry -- under not 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 6

knowing my rights, and I’ve done a little more research into the case, and I 

don’t feel that I need to plead guilty to that. 

 THE COURT: Well, then, why didn’t you go to trial that day? I mean, 

we had the jury here that day. 

 THE DEFENDANT: I apologize. I wasn’t’ – I don’t know. I just wasn’t 

ready for that. I was – 

 THE COURT: Are you prepared to go forward on that - - on that 

motion today Ms. Fries? 

 MS. FRIES: No, I’m not, Your Honor. 

 * * * 

 THE COURT: * * * Since Ms. Goodin has not been sentenced yet I 

do have to do a - - a hearing on this motion. * * * 

June 16, 2015 Hearing Tr. at 3-4. 

{¶16} Appellant’s motion to withdraw was made presentence. The trial court 

conducted a hearing on the plea withdrawal motion on June 19, 2015. At the hearing, 

Appellant’s counsel argued, 

 MS. FRIES: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court, Ms. 

Goodin suffers from congenital spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, 

and she has scoliosis. Two days before the scheduled trial on May 20th of 

2015 she developed excruciating back pain and loss of movement and 

feeling in her right leg. Day before trial she went to the hospital. She was – 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 7

to Good Samaritan Hospital. She was there for the entire day. She’s not 

exactly sure what time she left, but it was late at night. 

 She was prescribed medication and was taking all her prescribed 

medications prior to trial, being Norco, Flexeril, Naproxen, Prozac, and 

Xanax. She was groggy and tired on the date of her trial. She arrived on 

crutches and late. 

 We hurriedly went over the plea form. She didn’t understand the 

nature of the charges against her, and she did not understand that she 

would have to serve a mandatory prison sentence. When she left here, she 

slept the entire way to jail, and she slept the entire first day and beyond at 

jail. 

 She currently wishes to withdraw her guilty plea and stand trial for 

this matter in which she believes she has a complete defense of duress. 

June 19, 2015 Tr. at 3-4. 

{¶17} At the June 19, 2015, the trial court did not hear the testimony of witnesses; 

rather, only the arguments of counsel. The trial court noted Appellant was advised at the 

time of the plea hearing she faced a mandatory prison term. Further, Appellant indicated 

during the presentence investigation she had not been under the influence of drugs, 

despite being involved with drugs previously during her life. June 19, 2015 at 7-8. 

{¶18} The trial court gave a full hearing considering Appellant’s motion to withdraw 

plea. Appellant moved the trial court to withdraw her plea arguing she had time to 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 8

research her case, and reconsidered her decision. Her counsel argued she was not 

aware she was entering a plea to a mandatory prison sentence, as she was under the 

influence of her medication at the time of the plea hearing. However, Appellant stated in 

open court she understood the terms of her plea, and the trial court advised Appellant 

she was subject to a mandatory term of imprisonment. The trial court was in the best 

position to observe Appellant’s actions and evaluate her responses at the time of her 

change of plea. 

{¶19} We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to 

withdraw plea under these circumstances. 

{¶20} The first assignment of error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶21} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains she was denied the 

effective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Appellant maintains trial counsel was 

ineffective herein in failing to cultivate and develop Appellant’s defense of duress at trial. 

{¶22} Appellant asserts her competency and sanity evaluation along with the 

presentence investigation report indicate she acted under duress when committing the 

offenses herein. Further, Appellant maintains trial counsel failed to ensure Appellant was 

fully aware of the ramifications and consequences of her plea. 

{¶23} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant must satisfy a twoprong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently. See, 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In 

assessing such claims, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct 

falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 9

must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action 

‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, citing Michel v. 

Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955). 

{¶24} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. 

Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same 

way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The question is whether counsel acted 

“outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 

2052. 

{¶25} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, the defendant 

must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice” 

prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 

{¶26} Here, trial counsel properly weighed the evidence and the likelihood of 

success on the merits, making a tactical decision to enter a plea to the charges. 

Appellant’s change of heart or mistaken belief about the guilty plea does not constitute a 

legitimate basis to withdraw the plea. State v. Powell, 10th Dist. 01-AP-891, 2002 Ohio 

1725. 

{¶27} The evidence demonstrates Appellant admitted to manufacturing and 

selling methamphetamine outside the presence of her spouse. She further told a 

confidential informant “more drugs were available” during the investigation. The evidence 

does not demonstrate the defense of duress would have been such a strong tactical 

advantage at trial to assure a verdict in Appellant’s favor. Accordingly, trial counsel made 
Perry County, Case No. 15-CA-00016 10

a tactical decision to weigh the likelihood of success of any possible defense in advising 

Appellant to accept the terms of the plea offered herein. 

{¶28} The second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶29} The judgment of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Farmer, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur