DocketNumber: Case No. 04AP-344.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 6835
Judges: BROWN, J.
Filed Date: 12/16/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On March 23, 2003, appellant was indicted on five counts of rape, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} On January 26, 2004, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his accompanying memorandum in support, appellant argued that he did not fully understand the nature and consequences of his Alford plea. The state filed a memorandum contra appellant's motion to withdraw his plea. By entry filed on March 5, 2004, the trial court denied appellant's motion to withdraw his plea.
{¶ 4} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following single assignment of error for review:
The trial court erred when it overruled the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 5} Crim.R. 32.1 provides that "[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." A Crim.R. 32.1 motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb the court's determination absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Marable, Franklin App. No. 03AP-97, 2003-Ohio-6653, at ¶ 9.
{¶ 6} In the present case, appellant's request to withdraw his plea was made post-sentence, and, therefore, "the standard by which the motion was to be considered was `to correct manifest injustice.'" State v. Honaker, Franklin App. No. 04AP-146,
{¶ 7} In North Carolina v. Alford (1970),
{¶ 8} Appellant relies upon State v. Casale (1986),
{¶ 9} Appellant, however, did not enter a guilty plea to the originally charged offenses of rape but, rather, to the reduced charge of child endangering. On this point, we note appellant does not assert that there is no factual basis for the child endangering charge. Further, appellant does not cite any authority for the proposition that the state was required to present a factual basis for a more serious charge to which he did not enter a plea.
{¶ 10} The state maintains that the requirement of a factual basis is satisfied if there exists a sufficient factual basis for the charge to which appellant entered his Alford plea. We agree with this contention. See, e.g., State v. Shell (Oct. 30, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71736 ("[w]hen a criminal defendant professes his innocence when entering a guilty plea, the trial court should inquire as to whether the plea is based upon a rational calculation that a factual basis exists for such a plea"); State v. Smith (Wisc. 1996),
{¶ 11} We therefore consider whether the record in this case demonstrates a factual basis for a charge of endangering children under R.C.
{¶ 12} At the hearing on the plea, the prosecutor explained that, on November 7, 2001, the juvenile bureau for the Columbus Division of Police received a child sexual abuse referral involving a minor and his father, appellant. According to the referral, when the child was age six to seven, appellant threatened and allegedly raped and molested him and his brother, and "threatened to kill them if they ever told." (Tr. at 5.) The prosecutor stated that, based upon a review of the records, at the "very least" the minor was physically abused by appellant, including being whipped with a belt, chased by appellant wearing a mask, and threatened. The prosecutor related that, during the investigation, appellant admitted it was possible that another male in the house had probably sexually abused the children as well. There were also facts presented indicating that appellant psychologically abused the children; specifically, a psychologist wrote a letter to the Children Family Guidance Center stating that appellant had threatened the boys with physical violence during past visits. There were also allegations that at times there was insufficient food in the house.
{¶ 13} As noted, appellant's plea was entered pursuant to a plea bargain, and appellant's counsel noted at the hearing that his client felt it was "best for him to enter an Alford plea and avoid the consequences of going to trial." (Tr. at 7.) The trial court was aware that appellant was pleading to a significantly reduced charge of child endangering in contrast to the potential for life sentences. Appellant acknowledged before the court that he was voluntarily pleading guilty to the charge of endangering children, and he understood that the maximum sentence was eight years imprisonment, and that the court could sentence him to the maximum regardless of the state's recommendation of three years. A review of the colloquy also indicates that the trial court apprised appellant of the rights he was foregoing by entering the plea; appellant acknowledged that, by pleading guilty, he was waiving his right to a jury trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Further, as outlined above, the trial court required the prosecution to place on the record the facts giving rise to the plea, and that summary was sufficient to allow the court to ascertain that there existed a factual basis for the plea to the charge of endangering children. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has failed to establish a manifest injustice and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea.
{¶ 14} Based upon the foregoing, appellant's single assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Bryant and McCormac, JJ., concur.
McCormac, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section