Court Opinion

ID: 9380135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 14:05:22.575552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.851562
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rosemond, 2023-Ohio-848.]

                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,                                :    APPEAL NO. C-220235
                                                   TRIAL NO. B-2002483
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                    :

 vs.                                          :        O P I N I O N.

DEMETRIUS ROSEMOND,                           :

    Defendant-Appellant.                      :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 17, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
                        OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}    Demetrius Rosemond appeals his conviction for having a weapon while

under a disability after a guilty plea. In two assignments of error, Rosemond argues

that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his presentence motion to

withdraw his plea and erred by imposing a maximum sentence. For the following

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                               Factual Background

       {¶2}    Demetrius Rosemond was charged with having weapons while under a

disability, carrying concealed weapons, and improperly handling firearms in a motor

vehicle. Rosemond agreed to plead guilty to the weapons-under-a-disability charge,

and in exchange, the state agreed to dismiss the other two charges. After accepting

the guilty plea, the trial court continued the matter for sentencing.

       {¶3}    When Rosemond failed to appear for sentencing, the trial court issued

a warrant for his arrest and allowed defense counsel to withdraw from the case. One

month later, Rosemond turned himself in, and at the next hearing, Rosemond’s new

counsel represented to the court that Rosemond missed the sentencing hearing

because he was hospitalized for Covid at Christ Hospital or Jewish Hospital. The

sentencing was continued to allow counsel to procure Rosemond’s medical records to

establish the hospitalization. The trial court issued subpoenas to the hospitals to

obtain the medical records, but Rosemond was unable to produce any medical records

of a hospitalization.

       {¶4}    At the next hearing, Rosemond moved to withdraw his plea due to

“representations * * * dealing with his old attorney.”        Defense counsel further

explained that Rosemond “didn’t understand the full ramifications and consequences

of his plea at that time based upon representations of counsel.”

                                                 2
                        OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶5}   The trial court overruled the motion because the court conducted “a

thorough evaluation and examination at each and every plea. The defendant was fully

notified.   The defendant is no stranger to court proceedings.          The defendant

understood the ramifications of entering that plea.”        The court noted that an

exhaustive search of the local hospitals failed to yield any medical documents

establishing a Covid hospitalization. The court further found that “the defendant was

never [hospitalized] during the time of his sentencing; thus validating my suspicion

that he simply capiased and did not appear and is now having second thoughts because

he got caught and has been picked up.” The trial court sentenced Rosemond to a

prison term of three years.

                              Motion to Withdraw Plea

       {¶6}   In his first assignment of error, Rosemond contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by overruling his presentence motion to withdraw his plea.

       {¶7}   “A presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and

liberally granted.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992).

However, a defendant does not have an “absolute right” to withdraw his plea, even

when a motion to withdraw is made before sentencing. Id. at paragraph one of the

syllabus.

       {¶8}   Before ruling on a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, the trial court

must conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant has a reasonable and

legitimate basis for withdrawing the plea. Id. Whether there is a reasonable and

legitimate basis for the defendant’s request to withdraw his plea is “within the sound

discretion of the trial court.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Absent an abuse of

discretion on the part of the trial court in making its ruling, its decision must be

affirmed. Id. at 526.

                                               3
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

          {¶9}   In determining whether the court abused its discretion, we consider the

following factors: (1) whether the defendant was represented by highly competent

counsel; (2) whether the defendant was afforded a complete Crim.R. 11 hearing when

entering the plea; (3) whether the trial court conducted a full and impartial hearing on

the motion to withdraw; (4) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to

the motion to withdraw; (5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time;

(6) whether the motion included specific reasons for withdrawing the plea; (7) whether

the defendant understood the charges and possible penalties; (8) whether the

defendant had a complete defense to the charges; and (9) whether the state would be

prejudiced by the withdrawal. State v. Jefferson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-020802,

2003-Ohio-4308, ¶ 7, citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788

(1995).

          {¶10} Here, the court conducted a hearing and considered the relevant factors.

Rosemond’s counsel represented that there was a misunderstanding of “the full

ramifications and consequences of his plea at that time based upon representations of

counsel,” but did not specify the nature of the alleged misunderstanding. Moreover,

the trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy with Rosemond before accepting the

plea to ensure that he knew the consequences of the plea.

          {¶11} The trial court concluded that Rosemond did not have a reasonable and

legitimate basis to withdraw the plea. Rather, he was motivated by the potential

consequences of missing the sentencing hearing and failing to provide proof that he

missed the hearing because he was hospitalized. “A defendant who has a change of

heart regarding his guilty plea should not be permitted to withdraw his plea just

because he is made aware that an unexpected sentence is going to be imposed.” State

                                                4
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

v. Conley, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200144, 2021-Ohio-837, ¶ 16, citing State v.

Lambros, 44 Ohio App.3d 102, 103, 541 N.E.2d 632 (8th Dist.1988).

       {¶12} Based on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

overruling the motion to withdraw the plea. We overrule the first assignment of error.

                                      Sentence

       {¶13} In his second assignment of error, Rosemond asserts that the trial court

erred by imposing a maximum sentence. Specifically, Rosemond argues the record

does not support his sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

       {¶14} Sentences are reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). Under this standard, an appellate court may increase, reduce or

otherwise modify a sentence, or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the

sentencing court for resentencing, if the court clearly and convincingly finds that (1)

the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or

other relevant statutes, or (2) if the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).

However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an appellate court to

modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the

record under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-

Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39.

       {¶15} Rosemond argues that the sentence on the felony was not supported by

the record. However, Jones precludes an appellate court from modifying or vacating

a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record. See id.

at ¶ 30. Therefore, we overrule the second assignment of error.

                                     Conclusion

                                                5
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶16} Having overruled Rosemond’s two assignments of error, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

                                                             Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

Please note:
       The court has recorded its own entry this date.

                                                6