State v. Pierce , 2022 Ohio 4048 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Pierce, 2022-Ohio-4048.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-T-0011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
JAMES EUGENE PIERCE, JR.,
Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00310
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: November 14, 2022
Judgment: Affirmed
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
David L. Engler, Engler Law Firm, 181 Elm Road, N.E., Warren, OH 44483 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, James Eugene Pierce, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion to
withdraw guilty pleas and the denial of his motion for findings of fact and conclusions of
law. We affirm.
{¶2} Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape (F1), in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(1)(b)&(B), and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (F4), in
violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1)&(F). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of
life with the possibility of parole after ten years and classified as a Tier III Sex Offender /
Child Victim Offender. The direct appeal from appellant’s conviction was dismissed as
untimely. State v. Pierce, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0005, 2021-Ohio-1019.
{¶3} Appellant filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the
trial court denied without a hearing. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion for findings of
fact and conclusions of law, which the trial court also denied. Appellant noticed an appeal
from both entries.
{¶4} Appellant raises three assignments of error:
[1.] The Trial Court did not accept Guilty pleas that were
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given by Defendant-
Appellant due to his psychological and physical condition at
the time of the Plea Hearing.
[2.] The Trial Court failed to conduct a Hearing on the post-
Sentencing Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas, depriving
Appellant of his Constitutional rights to due process of law.
[3.] The Trial Court failed to issue Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, depriving Appellant of his Constitutional
rights to due process of law in both the Trial and Appellate
Courts.
{¶5} In his first assigned error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in
accepting his guilty pleas because they were not voluntarily given. In his second assigned
error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas without holding a hearing.
{¶6} Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a
guilty plea, as well as the decision whether to hold a hearing, for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Peete, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2018-T-0094, 2019-Ohio-2513, ¶ 15-16. An abuse
of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-
2
Case No. 2022-T-0011
making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting
Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.2004).
{¶7} “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.”
Crim.R. 32.1; State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82, 2019-Ohio-5206, 147 N.E.3d 623, ¶
13.
{¶8} “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.
Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. “A
‘manifest injustice’ is a ‘clear or openly unjust act’ and relates to a fundamental flaw in the
plea proceedings resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” (Citations omitted.) Straley at ¶
14, quoting State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208, 699 N.E.2d 83(1998). “The term ‘has been variously defined, but it is clear that under such standard, a
postsentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases.’” Straley at ¶
14, quoting Smith at 264.
{¶9} In his Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence motion, appellant argues that at the time
he entered the pleas he was under the influence of prescription medication and was under
extreme psychological duress due to the recent death of his wife, the nature of the
accusations against him, and the fact that he faced a potential life sentence. Appellant
further asserts that the trial court may not have been able to pick up on these issues
because the plea hearing was held via WebEx instead of in person. Appellant submitted
3
Case No. 2022-T-0011
affidavits in support of his motion from his daughter and a friend, who also owns a bail
bond company and bonded appellant out of jail.
{¶10} We first note that although the trial court must accord due deference to a
supporting affidavit when deciding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion, the court has discretion to judge
the credibility of the affidavit prior to conducting an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
State v. West, 2017-Ohio-5596, 93 N.E.3d 1221, ¶ 38 (1st Dist.); accord State v. Watters,
11th Dist. Geauga No. 2016-G-0094, 2017-Ohio-5640, ¶ 14 (“[A] trial court is permitted
to assess the credibility of an affidavit before determining whether to grant a motion to
withdraw.” (Emphasis added and citation omitted.)). “In assessing an affidavit’s
credibility, and thus determining the need for a hearing, the court must consider all
relevant factors, including:
(1) whether the judge reviewing the motion also presided at
the plea hearing, (2) whether multiple affidavits contain nearly
identical language or otherwise appear to have been drafted
by the same person, (3) whether the affidavit contains or relies
on hearsay, (4) whether the affiant is related to the defendant
or otherwise interested in the success of his efforts, (5)
whether the affidavit contradicts defense evidence, (6)
whether the affidavit is contradicted by any other sworn
statement of the affiant, and (7) whether the affidavit is
internally inconsistent.
(Citation omitted) West at ¶ 38; accord Watters at ¶ 15 (adopting for purposes of a Crim.R.
32.1 motion the factors set forth in State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905(1999) for assessing affidavits submitted in support of a postconviction petition).
{¶11} Here, appellant’s daughter averred that appellant suffered from depression
and suicidal attempts while the case was pending. She further averred that she saw
appellant in the morning on the day of his plea hearing and that he was under the
influence of prescription medication, which affected his ability to understand the
4
Case No. 2022-T-0011
proceedings. These averments contradict unequivocal statements made by appellant to
the trial court during the plea hearing. Further, as appellant’s daughter, she is interested
in the success of appellant’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea, and the credibility of her
affidavit should be weighed accordingly. Appellant’s friend, and bail bondsman, averred
that appellant claimed he was innocent but did not want to face a trial on the sensitive
charges. There is no information in his affidavit, however, surrounding appellant’s guilty
pleas. Taken as true, neither of these affidavits speak to appellant’s decision to enter the
guilty pleas or to his actual state of mind during the plea hearing, and neither support
appellant’s assertion of a manifest injustice. Thus, it was within the trial court’s discretion
to weigh the credibility of the affidavits and decide that an evidentiary hearing was not
warranted.
{¶12} Additionally, the trial judge who reviewed the motion to withdraw is the same
judge who accepted appellant’s guilty plea, and our review of the plea transcript reveals
no irregularities with the hearing. Appellant entered the guilty pleas while under the
representation of competent counsel, addressed and responded to the court
appropriately, and agreed to the hearing being conducted via WebEx without objection.
{¶13} Even if the allegations in the motion are accepted as true, appellant has not
satisfied the high burden of demonstrating the presence of a manifest injustice. The
record belies any present allegation that the decision to plead guilty was made with an
unclear mind or that the pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Further, “Ohio law does not favorably accommodate a defendant’s argument that his or
her plea was involuntary due to the undue stress that resulted from being informed of the
5
Case No. 2022-T-0011
maximum possible sentence that could be imposed.” State v. Jackson, 11th Dist.
Trumbull No. 98-T-0182, 2000 WL 522440, *3 (Mar. 31, 2000), citing Crim.R. 11(C).
{¶14} Accordingly, because appellant has not demonstrated a manifest injustice,
the trial court court’s denial of appellant’s postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion was not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Further, because the record belies the
allegations in support of appellant’s motion, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial
court not to hold an evidentiary hearing.
{¶15} Appellant’s first and second assigned errors are without merit.
{¶16} In his third assigned error, appellant contends that the trial court denied him
due process by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the
denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. A trial court has no duty, however, to
issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it denies a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to
withdraw a plea. State v. Green, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2018-T-0063, 2019-Ohio-1303,
¶ 28-29, citing State v. Dewey, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 98-A-0027, 1998 WL 964499, *4
(Dec. 4, 1998), citing State ex rel. Hagwood v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72084,
1997 WL 209289, *1 (Apr. 24, 1997), and State v. Marshall, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-88-
63, 1989 WL 72239, *2 (June 30, 1989). Accordingly, we find no merit with appellant’s
third assigned error.
{¶17} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
MATT LYNCH, J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
6
Case No. 2022-T-0011