Court Opinion

ID: 9893401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 20:09:08.0296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:02.640943
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2023-Ohio-3903.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                     JUDGES:
                                                  Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                        Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                  Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
                                                  Case No. 22 COA 028
TAVIAN THOMAS

        Defendant-Appellant                       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                       Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
                                               Pleas, Case No. 22 CRI 029

JUDGMENT:                                      Vacated and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        October 26, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL                         BENJAMIN R. SORBER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                           HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL
NADINE HAUPTMAN                                3737 Embassy Parkway
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                           Suite 100
119 Cottage Street, Third Floor                Akron, Ohio 44333
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 22 COA 028                                                      2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Tavian Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence entered in

the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is State of Ohio. The relevant facts

leading to this appeal are as follows.

                          STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On February 11, 2022, Appellee filed a thirteen-count indictment for one

count of Kidnapping in violation of R.C. §2905.01(A)(3), one count of Abduction in

violation of R.C. §2905.02(A)(1), two counts of Carrying a Concealed Weapon in violation

of R.C. §2923.12(A)(2) and (1), two counts of Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor

Vehicle in violation of R.C. §2923.16(B), one count of Menacing by Stalking in violation

of R.C. §2903.211(A)(1), two counts of Intimidation of an Attorney, Victim or Witness in

Criminal Case in violation of R.C. §2921.04(B)(2), one count of Possessing Criminal Tools

in violation of R.C. §2923.24(A), two counts of Aggravated Menacing in violation of R.C.

§2903.21(A), and one count of Domestic Violence in violation of R.C. §2919.25(A).

       {¶3}   On April 6, 2022, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a plea of

guilty to Kidnapping, in violation of R.C. §2905.01(A)(3), Intimidation of an Attorney,

Victim, or Witness in a Criminal Case in violation of R.C. §2921.04(B), and Domestic

Violence in violation of R.C. §2929.25(A). All other remaining charges were dismissed.

       {¶4}   On May 2, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion to Obtain New Counsel.

       {¶5}   On May 4, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea.

       {¶6}   Appellant’s original counsel withdrew from representation.

       {¶7}   On June 5, 2022, Appellant’s new counsel entered his appearance and filed

a formal motion in support of Appellant’s request to withdraw guilty plea.
Ashland County, Case No. 22 COA 028                                                        3

        {¶8}   On June 28, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s motion to

withdraw guilty plea. At the hearing, Appellant testified he only met his previous attorney

two or three times, counsel did not have discovery during their first meeting and did not

bring all discovery to the second meeting. Appellant does not feel like it was his decision

to plead guilty.

        {¶9}   On July 18, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty

plea.

                                   ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

        {¶10} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following

Assignment of Error:

        {¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING MR. THOMAS’ MOTION

TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.”

                                                 I.

        {¶12} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court

erred by overruling Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We agree.

        {¶13} Crim.R. 32.1 governs withdrawals of guilty pleas. It provides that “[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.”

        {¶14} 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
Ashland County, Case No. 22 COA 028                                                         4

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.

       {¶15} 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. “[T]he trial court

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

for the withdrawal of the plea.” Id. Whether a “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).

       {¶16} During the hearing on Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial

court found that, “he didn’t see where there is any manifest injustice under the

circumstance.” Tr. 23. As set forth in the rule, the manifest injustice standard applies to

post-sentence plea withdrawals. Therefore, we find the trial court abused its discretion by

analyzing the information gathered at the hearing on Appellant’s motion to withdrawal his

guilty plea using the manifest injustice standard instead of determining whether or not

there is a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his plea.

       {¶17} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is well taken.
Ashland County, Case No. 22 COA 028                                              5

       {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,

Ashland County, Ohio, is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this Opinion.

By: Wise, J.

Hoffman, P. J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 1024