State v. Barnett

Ohio: Court of Appeals
73 Ohio App. 3d 244, 596 NE 2d 1101 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentencing should be freely allowed, and a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies such a motion without conducting a complete, impartial, and fair hearing into the defendant's reasons for the request.

Facts:

On December 29, 1986, Charles T. Barnett was arrested for aggravated robbery and remained incarcerated.
Barnett became dissatisfied with his first court-appointed counsel's plea negotiations and lack of trial preparation, leading him to request the counsel's withdrawal.
A second counsel was appointed on April 8, 1987, just six days before the scheduled trial date of April 14, 1987.
The second counsel informed Barnett that he did not have adequate time to prepare for trial.
The trial court refused to grant a continuance unless Barnett waived his right to a speedy trial, which Barnett declined to do.
On April 13, 1987, one day before the scheduled trial, Barnett entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery.

Procedural Posture:

Charles T. Barnett was indicted in a state trial court on two charges of aggravated robbery.
Barnett entered a plea of not guilty.
Barnett later entered a plea of guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a specification, as part of a plea bargain.
At the sentencing hearing, Barnett made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and imposed a sentence.
Barnett (Defendant-Appellant) filed a notice of appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals against the State of Ohio (Appellee).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a defendant's pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea without conducting a full and fair hearing on the motion's basis?

Opinions:

Majority - Grady, Judge.

Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea without giving full and fair consideration to the request. A motion to withdraw a plea made prior to sentencing should be freely allowed, as it invokes the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury. The record shows the trial court gave no consideration to the basis for Barnett's request and focused only on the fact that a plea had been entered. By failing to provide a complete and impartial hearing on the motion, the court's denial was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of discretion.

Concurring - Brogan, Judge.

Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's reasoning and outcome, adding that while the record is silent on the speedy trial issue, regularity in the proceedings is presumed. It also concurs that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is more appropriately resolved in post-conviction proceedings.

Concurring - Wolff, Judge.

Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the judgment to remand the case for a hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea. However, it expresses reservation about the majority's conclusion that a guilty plea automatically waives a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a speedy trial motion. It agrees to overrule the first assignment of error based on the current record but notes that Barnett could raise the issue in post-conviction relief proceedings.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the liberal standard applied to pre-sentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas in Ohio. It establishes that a trial court cannot summarily deny such a motion, even if the plea was initially entered in compliance with Criminal Rule 11. The ruling mandates that courts conduct a substantive hearing to give 'full and fair consideration' to the defendant's reasons, thereby creating a crucial procedural safeguard. This precedent protects a defendant's fundamental right to a jury trial against potentially coerced or ill-considered pleas that may arise from circumstances like pressure from trial deadlines or perceived inadequacies in legal representation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Barnett (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"