State v. Benson ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Benson, 
    2012-Ohio-230
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    -vs-
    SEAN BENSON
    Defendant-Appellant
    JUDGES:
    Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
    Hon. John W. Wise, J.
    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    Case No. 11 CA 10
    OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                       Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court,
    Case No. CRB 1100291
    JUDGMENT:                                      Reversed and Remanded
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         January 23, 2012
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant
    J. MATTHEW DAWSON
    35 South Park Place, Suite 10
    Newark, Ohio 43055
    Wise, J.
    {¶1}   Appellant Sean Benson appeals the decision of the Municipal Court of
    Perry County, which denied his pre-sentence request to withdraw a no contest plea.
    The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
    {¶2}   On or about May 27, 2011, following an altercation with his mother-in-law,
    appellant was charged with assault, R.C. 2903.13(A), a misdemeanor of the first
    degree. On May 31, 2011, appellant appeared pro se for arraignment at the Perry
    County Municipal Court. After some colloquy with the trial court, appellant entered a
    plea of no contest to the assault charge. The court accepted appellant’s plea and set
    the matter for a sentencing hearing.
    {¶3}   After leaving the courthouse, appellant met with counsel and ultimately
    decided to withdraw his plea prior to the time set for sentencing. On June 2, 2011,
    appellant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea,
    including therein a request for a hearing. The trial court denied said motion on June 13,
    2011.
    {¶4}   On June 16, 2011, appellant appeared for sentencing. The court ordered
    that appellant pay a fine of $200.00 plus costs and serve sixty days in jail, suspended
    on condition of a Mound Builders assessment, twenty hours of community service, and
    one year of probation. A sentencing entry was issued on July 19, 2011.
    {¶5}   Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and he herein raises the following
    sole Assignment of Error:
    {¶6}   “I.   THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S
    MOTION TO WITHDRAW NO CONTEST PLEA PRIOR TO SENTENCING.”
    I.
    {¶7}   In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in
    denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea to misdemeanor
    assault. We agree, to the extent that a hearing is required.
    {¶8}   Unlike the “manifest injustice” standard governing a post-sentence motion,
    Crim.R. 32.1 has no specific guidelines for granting a presentence motion to withdraw a
    guilty plea. State v. Calloway, Hamilton App.No. C-040066, 
    2004-Ohio-5613
    , ¶ 11,
    citing State v. Xie (1992), 
    62 Ohio St.3d 521
    , 526, 
    584 N.E.2d 715
    . A presentence
    motion to withdraw a plea should be freely and liberally granted; however, the decision
    is left to the trial court's sound discretion. 
    Id.,
     citing Xie at 526. The holdings in Xie as to
    withdrawals of guilty pleas are applicable to situations involving pleas of no contest. See
    State v. Spivey (1998), 
    81 Ohio St.3d 405
    , 415.
    {¶9}   Furthermore, a trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether
    there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea. Xie, supra. The
    court should examine whether the defendant was represented, whether the withdrawal
    will prejudice the prosecution, the timing of the motion, the reasons given for the
    withdrawal, the defendant's understanding of the charges and penalties, and the
    existence of a meritorious defense. State v. Graham, Holmes App.No. 04-CA-001,
    
    2004-Ohio-2556
    , ¶ 39, citing State v. Kimbrough (March 28, 1988), Stark App. No. CA-
    7363, and State v. Fish (1995), 
    104 Ohio App.3d 236
    , 240, 
    661 N.E.2d 788
    .
    {¶10} In the case sub judice, we note the State did not file an appellee’s brief.
    Accordingly, we refer to App.R. 18(C), which states in pertinent part: “If an appellee fails
    to file the appellee's brief within the time provided by this rule, or within the time as
    extended, * * * in determining the appeal, the court may accept the appellant's
    statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if appellant's brief
    reasonably appears to sustain such action.”
    {¶11} Appellant herein asserts that he may have been able to raise a defense of
    self-defense, and he further points out that the victim’s comments at the sentencing
    hearing suggest she is recanting parts of what she told law enforcement officials
    originally. See Sentencing Tr. at 5-10. In light of Xie, supra, and App.R. 18(C), we hold
    reversal and remand for a hearing on the motion to withdraw no contest plea is
    warranted under the circumstances of this case.
    {¶12} Appellant's sole Assignment of Error is sustained.
    {¶13} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the
    Municipal Court of Perry County, Ohio, is hereby reversed and remanded.
    By: Wise, J.
    Gwin, P. J., and
    Delaney, J., concur.
    ___________________________________
    ___________________________________
    ___________________________________
    JUDGES
    JWW/d 1230
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                    :
    :
    -vs-                                         :       JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    SEAN BENSON                                  :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant                   :       Case No. 11 CA 10
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
    judgment of the Municipal Court of Perry County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded for
    further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Costs assessed to appellee.
    ___________________________________
    ___________________________________
    ___________________________________
    JUDGES
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11 CA 10

Judges: Wise

Filed Date: 1/23/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016