Court Opinion

ID: 9398520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:10:07.138534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.165014
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Conner, 2023-Ohio-1806.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                :      JUDGES:
                                             :      Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                   :      Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                             :      Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
MARQUAWN L. CONNER                           :      Case No. 2022-CA-00038
                                             :
        Defendant-Appellant                  :      OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                    Pleas, Case No. CRB 21-CRB-1469

JUDGMENT:                                           Vacated and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   May 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

MITCHELL R. HARDEN                                  SCOTT P. WOOD
136 West Main Street                                120 E. Main Street
Lancaster, OH 43130                                 Suite 200
                                                    Lancaster, OH 43130
King, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Marquawn L. Conner appeals the judgment of the

Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas which denied his presentence motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

        {¶ 2} On November 10, 2021 in the Fairfield County Municipal Court, Conner was

charged by complaint with one count each of domestic violence, assault, and aggravated

menacing, misdemeanors of the first degree. He was further charged with unlawful

restraint, a misdemeanor of the third degree.

        {¶ 3} On May 11, 2022, following negotiations with the state, Conner entered a

plea of guilty to the charge of domestic violence. In exchange for his plea, the state

dismissed the remaining charges. The matter was set for sentencing on September 19,

2022.

        {¶ 4} On July 15, 2022, counsel for Conner was permitted to withdraw. The trial

court appointed new counsel the same day.

        {¶ 5} On August 11, 2022, Conner, through newly-appointed counsel, filed a

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion asserted Conner did not have the

opportunity to fully review his case or consult with counsel before entering his plea, and

further that he was not notified of the enhancement aspects of his guilty plea before

entering his plea. The motion further indicated Conner believed there was a potential

defense to the charges.

        {¶ 6} On August 15, 2022, the trial court denied Conner's motion via judgment

entry, without a hearing.
      {¶ 7} On September 19, 2022, Conner appeared for sentencing. During the

hearing counsel for Conner attempted to raise the issue of the motion to withdraw

Conner's guilty plea:

             [Counsel for Conner]: Your Honor, thank you. First note, I'd like to

             renew on the record regarding the Court's ruling denying the request

             to withdraw guilty plea. We'd argue that the law says that that should

             be done freely and liberally in a case like this. My client had different

             counsel, was never notified of the enhancement provisions of

             pleading guilty to domestic violence, he had a warrant when he

             appeared for being late for a prior hearing. He indicates he was

             compelled at that point or advised that if he did not accept a plea, he

             would go to jail immediately and that's the only reason he accepted

             the plea. We believe them to be relevant factors that should –

             The Court: I already overruled it.

             [Counsel for Conner]: Understood.

      {¶ 8} Transcript of sentencing hearing at 4.

      {¶ 9} The trial court subsequently sentenced Conner to 180 days in jail with 177

days suspended and credit for 3 days served. Conner was further sentenced to 2 years

of community control.

      {¶ 10} Conner timely filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration, He raises one assignment of error as follows:
                                             I

       {¶ 11} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN ORAL

HEARING ON APPELLANT'S PRE-SENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY

PLEA."

       {¶ 12} In his sole assignment of error, Conner argues the trial court abused its

discretion when it failed to provide an oral hearing on his presentence motion to withdraw

his guilty plea. We agree.

       {¶ 13} 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). "Abuse of discretion" means an attitude that is

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d

83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). Most instances of abuse of discretion will result in

decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or

arbitrary. AAAA Ent., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d

157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). An unreasonable decision is one backed by no sound

reasoning process which would support that decision. Id. "It is not enough that the

reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning

process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that

would support a contrary result." Id.

       {¶ 14} 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."
       {¶ 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. at 527. 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} In the instant matter, we first note the judge who denied Conner's motion to

withdraw his guilty plea was not the same judge who took the plea. Additionally, there is

nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the judge who denied the motion

reviewed a transcript of the plea hearing before issuing a decision.

       {¶ 17} Second, because this was a presentence motion to withdraw, the trial court

was required to hold a hearing on the matter. While it is true that the Xie court did not

specify what type of hearing is required on a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty

plea, a defendant seeking to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing is nonetheless entitled

to a hearing which comports with the minimum standards of due process. State v. Foster,

5th Dist. Licking No. 2006 CA 00152, 2006-Ohio-29, ¶ 27.

       {¶ 18} Conner was not provided with an appropriate hearing, and his motion was

denied by a judge who did not take his plea. We therefore find the trial court abused its

discretion by denying Conner's motion without full and fair consideration.
       {¶ 19} Conner's assignment of error is well taken. The judgment of the Fairfield

County Court of Common Pleas is vacated and the matter is remanded for an appropriate

hearing.

By King, J.,

Gwin, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.