Court Opinion

ID: 9393543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 16:06:20.160656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.829897
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Shields, 2023-Ohio-1561.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                     DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                 :       JUDGES:
                                              :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellant                   :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                              :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                          :
                                              :
DERRELL SHIELDS                               :       Case No. 22 CAA 110079
                                              :
        Defendant-Appellee                    :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                      Pleas, Case No. 21 CR I 11 0639

JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                     May 9, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                               For Defendant-Appellee

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL                                   SAMUEL SAUL RICHARDSON
KATHERYN L. MUNGER                                    2621 Dryden Road
145 North Union Street, 3rd Floor                     Suite 306
Delaware, OH 43015                                    Dayton, OH 45439
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                                      2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant the state of Ohio appeals the October 20, 2022 judgment

of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Defendant-Appellee is Derrell Shields.

                               Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this

appeal. On November 4, 2021, the Delaware County Grand Jury returned an indictment

charging Shields with five counts of aggravated robbery, felonies of the first degree. Each

count included a firearm specification.

       {¶ 3} On September 13, 2022, following negotiations with the state, Shields

entered pleas of guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery as contained in counts 1, 4,

and 5 of the indictment and the attendant firearm specifications. In exchange for Shields'

pleas, the state dismissed counts 2 and 3. The parties jointly recommended a 12-year

prison term.

       {¶ 4} Shields filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas before sentencing took

place. On October 19, 2022, a hearing was held on the motion. At the conclusion of the

hearing the trial court granted Shields' motion. The trial court additionally vacated its order

dismissing counts two and three of the indictment and the attendant firearm

specifications.

       {¶ 5} The state filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. It raises one assignment of error as follows:

                                               I
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                                    3

       {¶ 6} "THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING DEFENDANT

TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA AS DEFENDANT OFFERED NO EVIDENCE OR

TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF."

       {¶ 7} In its sole assignment of error, the state argues the trial court abused its

discretion when it granted Shields' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree.

       {¶ 8} Our review of a trial court's decision under Crim.R. 32.1 is limited to a

determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio

St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). In order to find an abuse of that 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, 450

N.E.2d 1140 (1983). " * * * [T]he good faith, credibility and weight of the movant's

assertions in support of the [Crim.R. 32.1] motion are matters to be resolved by [the trial]

court." State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the

syllabus.

       {¶ 9} Crim.R. 32.1 states as follows: "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."

       {¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated a pre-sentence motion to withdraw

a guilty plea "should be freely and liberally granted." State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 526,

584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). That does not mean, however, a defendant has an absolute right

to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. There

must be "a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawal of the plea." Id. Whether a
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                                      4

“reasonable and legitimate basis” for the withdrawal of a plea exists also lies within the

trial court's sound discretion. State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306, 308, 688 N.E.2d

22 (9th Dist. 1996).

       {¶ 11} The factors which may considered by a trial court when making a decision

on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea include: (1) prejudice to the state; (2) counsel's

representation; (3) adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) extent of the plea

withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the

motion; (6) timing; (7) the reasons for the motion; (8) the defendant's understanding of

the nature of the charges and the potential sentences; and (9) whether the defendant was

perhaps not guilty or has a complete defense to the charge. State v. Fish, 104 Ohio

App.3d 236, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995). No one Fish factor is conclusive. State v.

Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895, 899, 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist. 2000).

       {¶ 12} The state first argues the trial court abused its discretion by granting Shields'

motion because Shields presented no evidence or affidavit during the hearing to support

his motion, and therefore the trial court could not have fairly considered the relevant

factors when making its decision. We are unaware of any requirement for an affidavit or

testimony from a defendant requesting to withdraw his plea. Rather, the scope of a

hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is "dependent upon the facial validity of the

motion itself." State v. Wittine, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90747, 2008-Ohio-5745, ¶ 8

       {¶ 13} The record here reflects the reason behind Shields' desire to withdraw his

guilty pleas was narrow and straight forward. Shields' motion to withdraw his guilty plea

indicated that on the day of his plea hearing, he was fully prepared to enter a no contest

plea. On that day, however, he learned that in order to take advantage of the agreed upon
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                                    5

sentence, he had to enter a plea of guilty. Shields' motion stated he did so without

appreciating the ramifications of a guilty plea as opposed to a no contest plea, specifically

the impact on his ability to challenge the trial court's adverse ruling on his motion to

suppress. Motion to Withdraw Plea filed October 11, 2022, docket at 129.

       {¶ 14} The motion is unclear as to who advised Shields' of this requirement.

However, an examination of the transcript of the hearing on Shields' motion to withdraw

his guilty plea lead us to a conclusion that this was a requirement of the state and not the

trial court. The record further indicates the trial court's position that the reason for

Shields's motion was reasonable and legitimate rather than merely a change of heart.

The trial court stated:

              I frankly was expecting a no contest plea in this case. I figured the

              parties would want the Court of Appeals to take a look at an issue

              that I'm sure is going to come up again and again in other cases and

              so getting some settled law from a higher court would I think be

              beneficial to everyone, not necessarily Mr. Shields himself

              depending on how the outcome came out but the parties I expect,

              the attorneys would be seeing this issue over and over in other

              cases, so I thought the parties would want to get that resolved and

              that that would perhaps happen in a no contest plea. So that's on my

              mind too that it is the kind of case where one might reasonably

              expect that and I confess I was surprised when I received the plea

              paperwork and saw it was a guilty plea and wondered how in the
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                                       6

              world that had happened. I didn't question it that day of course; it was

              an agreement, but its not shocking to me that that is an outcome that

              a person in Mr. Shields's position might have reasonably hoped for.

              ***

              But again, this was a motion before sentencing and my

              understanding of the relevant Criminal Rule is that I am generally

              supposed to be open to that kind of motion at this point.

       {¶ 15} Transcript of hearing T. 16-17.

       {¶ 16} While the state argues Shields failed to present evidence on each Fish

factor and provides us with argument on each of those factors, we find it is not necessary

for a defendant to present evidence on irrelevant factors. The factors set forth in Fish are

those that a trial court may consider. The reason for Shields's motion was his realization

that he lost the ability to challenge the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress through

his guilty plea. The trial court found that reason compelling enough to grant the motion,

even expressing its surprise that guilty pleas were entered at all. The court further found

granting the motion did not prejudice the state. T. 15.

       {¶ 17} We find the trial court's decision to grant Shields' motion to withdraw his

guilty plea was not unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. The sole assignment of

error is overruled.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 110079                                           7

       {¶ 18} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By King, J.,

Delaney, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.

AJK/rw