Court Opinion

ID: 9912562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 18:07:37.221559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:14.225752
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Cooke, 2023-Ohio-4679.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     FULTON COUNTY

State of Ohio                                      Court of Appeals No. F-23-002

        Appellee                                   Trial Court No. 23CR000006

v.

Jonathan E. Cooke                                  DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                  Decided: December 21, 2023

                                            *****
        Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

                                            *****

        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant Jonathan Cooke appeals the judgment of the Fulton County Court

of Common Pleas denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the

reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                              I. Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶ 2} On January 10, 2023, the Fulton County Grand Jury indicted Cooke on one

count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), with a specification that he
has previously been convicted of two or more offenses of domestic violence, a felony of

the third degree.

       {¶ 3} Cooke initially pleaded not guilty. On March 27, 2023, the matter came

before the trial court for a pretrial hearing at which Cooke discussed waiving his right to

a jury trial in favor of a bench trial. Prior to Cooke’s decision, defense counsel noted that

Cooke was “pretty emotional” and “having some anxiety.” The court allowed for a

recess so that Cooke could discuss the matter with his counsel.

       {¶ 4} Following the recess, Cooke indicated that he did not know if he wanted to

go to trial and communicated instead that he may be inclined to accept the state’s plea

offer. The trial court allowed the state to describe the terms of the plea agreement, which

were that Cooke would plead guilty to an amended count of domestic violence, a

misdemeanor of the first degree. In exchange, the state would nolle prosequi the felony

count of domestic violence without prejudice, reserving the right to re-file the felony

charge if Cooke did not follow the recommended conditions of his probation and

treatment programming. The court then took another recess so that Cooke could discuss

the offer with his counsel.

       {¶ 5} Following the second recess, Cooke accepted the plea offer and tendered a

plea of guilty to the amended count of domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first

degree. Defense counsel noted that Cooke understood that the felony charge could be re-

filed if he did not follow the terms of his probation and any counseling. Through

2.
counsel, Cooke waived preparation of a presentence investigation report and expressed

his desire to proceed immediately to sentencing.

          {¶ 6} The trial court engaged Cooke in a detailed Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy. When

the court asked if he understood the terms of the plea agreement, Cooke replied that the

state’s recommendation of inpatient treatment was new to him. He said “that wasn’t

made clear to me—but I guess that I would want to move (sic) the details moving

forward.” The court then confirmed that the state’s recommendation was for him to

enroll in Fresh Start or some other type of treatment program, but it informed Cooke that

the state’s recommendation was just that, a recommendation. The court explained to

Cooke that it would be deciding the sentence in the case and described those potential

sanctions in detail.

          {¶ 7} After the rest of the plea colloquy, Cooke affirmed that he was certain that

he wanted to enter the guilty plea. The trial court accepted Cooke’s plea and found him

guilty.

          {¶ 8} At the request of the parties, the trial court proceeded immediately to

sentencing and ordered Cooke to serve 180 days in jail, with credit for 83 days of time

served. It suspended the remainder of the sentence pending Cooke’s successful

completion of community control. As part of his community control, the court ordered

3.
Cooke to receive inpatient treatment at the Renewal Center,1 following which he must get

an assessment at Recovery Services for mental health related issues. The court further

ordered him to complete the Batterer’s Treatment Program at the Center for Child and

Family Advocacy.

       {¶ 9} Several days after the trial court entered its judgment of conviction, Cooke

filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea contending that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel because counsel did not fully inform him of the potential sanctions

that could be imposed such as treatment or probation in addition to a jail term. Cooke

also claimed that counsel was ineffective because he was never made aware that the state

could dismiss the felony charge without prejudice. Cooke stated that he would not have

pleaded guilty if not for the erroneous information from counsel regarding the potential

sentence. In addition, Cooke maintained that he experienced “emotional distress” and

“intense anxiety” during the plea hearing, which left him “emotionally compromised”

resulting in his desire to accept the plea deal to relieve his stress. Finally, Cooke listed

several other issues in support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, such as being

actually innocent, not being notified of the effect of the plea agreement, and the fact that

he only pleaded guilty because of his fear of conviction due to the state’s probable

character assassination and emotional appeal at trial.

1
 The court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment entry of sentencing recognizing that Fresh
Start was a defunct program and that the Renewal Center was the appropriate program for
Cooke.

4.
       {¶ 10} On April 11, 2023, the trial court denied Cooke’s motion without a hearing.

In its judgment, the court reasoned: “During the hearing that was held on March 27,

2023, the Court: (1) took multiple recesses so that Defendant could speak with his

attorney; and (2) took great pains to ensure that Defendant knew what was occurring, and

that Defendant was certain that proceeding with a negotiated plea was what he wanted to

do.” The court found, therefore, that Cooke had not demonstrated a “manifest injustice.”

                                 II. Assignment of Error

       {¶ 11} Cooke timely appealed the trial court’s April 11, 2023 judgment and now

asserts one assignment of error for review:

              1. The trial court erred in failing to correct a manifest injustice by

       refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea.

                                       III. Analysis

       {¶ 12} Crim.R. 32.1 governs the withdrawal of guilty pleas and provides: “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.”

       {¶ 13} “A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of

sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” State v.

Davis, 2020-Ohio-4539, 159 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Smith, 49 Ohio

St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. “A manifest injustice

is defined as a ‘clear or openly unjust act.’ Manifest injustice is an extremely high

5.
standard, and a defendant may only withdraw his guilty plea in extraordinary cases.”

State v. Johnson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1257, 2012-Ohio-4866, ¶ 9, quoting State v.

Harmon, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1195, 2011-Ohio-5035, ¶ 12; State v. Cain, 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L-20-1126, 2021-Ohio-1841, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 14} “The decision of whether manifest injustice occurred is left to the sound

discretion of the trial court.” Davis at ¶ 20, citing Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus.

“[T]he good faith, credibility and weight of the movant’s assertions in support of the

motion are matters to be resolved by that court.” Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus.

An appellate court reviews the trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion to withdraw

a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis at ¶ 21; State v. Xie, 62 Ohio

St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial

court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio

St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).

       {¶ 15} In his appellate brief, Cooke argues that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to properly inform him of the potential sanctions that could be imposed, and that

counsel’s ineffectiveness constitutes a manifest injustice entitling him to withdraw his

guilty plea. He also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion

without a hearing.

       {¶ 16} A hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea “is not

required if the facts alleged by the defendant, and accepted as true by the court, would not

require that the guilty plea be withdrawn.” State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201, 204,

6.
478 N.E.2d 1016 (6th Dist.1984); State v. Meadows, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-20-003,

2020-Ohio-4942, ¶ 12.

       {¶ 17} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Cooke must satisfy the

two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694, 104

S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). That is, Cooke must show (1) “that counsel’s

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.”

       {¶ 18} Here, even if Cooke’s assertions are assumed true—that counsel failed to

inform him of the potential sanctions and counsel failed to inform him that the state could

re-file the felony domestic violence charge—his claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel still fails because he cannot demonstrate prejudice. As the trial court noted, and

as the transcript of the sentencing hearing makes abundantly clear, the court fully

informed Cooke of the details and potential sanctions and consequences of the plea

agreement prior to accepting his guilty plea. Thus, Cooke has not shown a reasonable

probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel’s

alleged unprofessional errors.

       {¶ 19} Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined

that Cooke failed to establish the existence of a manifest injustice and denied his post-

sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.

       {¶ 20} Cooke’s assignment of error is not well-taken.

7.
                                       IV. Conclusion

         {¶ 21} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fulton County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Cooke is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

8.