State v. Park

[Cite as State v. Park, 2020-Ohio-261.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
WESLEY PARK : Case No. 19CA000024
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No.06CR010009
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 27, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
NICOLE E. DERR ERIC J. ALLEN
117 East High Street 4200 Regent
Suite 234 Suite 209
Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Columbux, OH 43219
Knox County, Case No. 19CA000024 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Wesley Park appeals the June 5, 2019 judgment entry
of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas which denied his motion to withdraw his
plea. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this
matter. This matter began as a capital murder case involving the shooting death of
Jonathan Schesby. On September 18, 2006, following negotiations with the state, Park
entered Alford pleas to the amended charge of one count of involuntary manslaughter
and its accompanying gun specification, as well as one count of tampering with
evidence. He was sentenced to an aggregate total of 15 years incarceration.
{¶ 3} Nearly 13 years later, on May 1, 2019, Park filed a motion to withdraw his
plea. In support of his motion, Park cited various inconsistencies in a 2006 statement to
police by witness Charles Maynard, and his own sworn statement given after he entered
his plea on August 10, 2010. Park further relied on two letters. First, a July 16, 2009 letter
written to Park by Maynard, wherein Maynard states he will not put anything in writing,
but advises Park to have his attorney contact him. A second letter from Maynard to Park
on August 6, 2009 indicates that Maynard gave all the information to Park's "people."
{¶ 4} On June 5, 2019, the trial court denied Park's motion finding Park's exhibits
unpersuasive, and the delay in their presentation a concern. The court further found
Park's plea was freely, voluntarily and intelligently made with Park's understanding of the
nature of the charges, and that sufficient evidence of his guilt was presented at the
Knox County, Case No. 19CA000024 3
change-of-plea hearing. The court ultimately found no extraordinary flaw in proceedings
which prejudiced Park in any way.
{¶ 5} Park filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for
consideration. He raises one assignment of error:
I
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA."
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, Park argues the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree.
{¶ 8} Crim.R. 32.1 states: “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.”
{¶ 9} 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). In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must
determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and
not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450
N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “ * * * [T]he good faith, credibility and weight of the movant's
assertions in support of the [Crim.R. 32.1] motion are matters to be resolved by [the trial]
court.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
Knox County, Case No. 19CA000024 4
{¶ 10} The basis for Park's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and his argument
here on appeal is that he is innocent of any wrongdoing and that it was Maynard who shot
Schesby. A Crim.R. 32.1 motion, however, is not a challenge to the validity of a conviction
or sentence, and instead focuses only on the plea. See State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235,
2002-Ohio-3993, 773 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 13. Park does not challenge his plea and in fact
concedes he was represented by competent counsel, that he was under no duress at the
time of his plea, and that the plea was freely and voluntarily entered. Appellant's brief,
page 7.
{¶ 11} Moreover, an “undue delay between the occurrence of the alleged cause
for withdrawal of a guilty plea and the filing of a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 is a factor
adversely affecting the credibility of the movant and militating against the granting of the
motion.” State v. Hoover, 3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-13-47, 2014-Ohio-1881, ¶ 16 quoting
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). The documents relied upon
by Park were authored ten years ago. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding these documents were both unpersuasive and further, did nothing to exculpate
Park.
{¶ 12} Upon review of the entirety of Park's claims in support of his motion to
withdraw plea, we are unpersuaded the trial court abused its discretion in declining to find
a manifest injustice warranting the extraordinary step of negating appellant's plea.
{¶ 13} Park's sole assignment of error is overruled.
Knox County, Case No. 19CA000024 5
{¶ 14} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Knox County, is affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Wise, John, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
EEW/rw