State v. Young , 2015 Ohio 4973 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Young, 2015-Ohio-4973.]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )
    STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.       27577
    Appellee
    v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    DAVID A. YOUNG                                        COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
    Appellant                                     CASE No.   CR-13-071773
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: December 2, 2015
    MOORE, Judge.
    {¶1}     Appellant, David Young, appeals an order of the Summit County Court of
    Common Pleas that denied his motion to withdraw a guilty plea. This Court affirms.
    I.
    {¶2}     Mr. Young was charged with trafficking in heroin and possession of heroin, both
    felonies of the first degree. His attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence gained as a result of
    an investigatory stop, but withdrew the motion before it was heard as plea negotiations
    progressed.      Mr. Young pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin in violation of R.C.
    2925.03(A)/(C)(6), and the trial court sentenced him to 36 months in prison, the minimum
    possible prison term for his offense. Mr. Young did not appeal. Instead, eight months later, he
    moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, arguing that his plea was not voluntary
    because of coercion arising from ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the motion
    2
    to suppress. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and Mr. Young filed
    this appeal.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
    MR. YOUNG WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
    COUNSEL GUARANTEED UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
    U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 10 & 16 OF THE
    OHIO CONSTITUTION.
    {¶3}    Mr. Young’s first assignment of error argues that because his attorney provided
    ineffective assistance in withdrawing the motion to suppress, his conviction for trafficking in
    heroin should be reversed. Mr. Young did not appeal his conviction, however, and the only
    matter that is before this Court on appeal is the trial court’s order denying his motion to
    withdraw his guilty plea. Because Mr. Young’s first assignment of error is not properly the
    subject of this appeal, it is overruled.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
    [THE] TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED MR.
    YOUNG’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE HIS
    PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY
    MADE.
    {¶4}    Mr. Young’s second assignment of error argues that the trial court erred by
    denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because, relying on the ineffective assistance of
    counsel that he received in connection with the motion to suppress, Mr. Young’s plea was not
    voluntary. This Court does not agree.
    {¶5}    Crim.R. 32.1 permits a trial court to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea
    after sentencing only when necessary “to correct [a] manifest injustice[.]” This remedy is only
    available in extraordinary cases when a defendant has established that a fundamental flaw in the
    3
    proceedings caused a miscarriage of justice or resulted in proceedings that did not comport with
    the constitutional demands of due process. State v. Griffin, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24179, 2009-
    Ohio-1212, ¶ 10. “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is ‘whether
    the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action
    open to the defendant.’” Hill v. Lockhart, 
    474 U.S. 52
    , 56 (1985), quoting North Carolina v.
    Alford, 
    400 U.S. 25
    , 31 (1970). This Court reviews an order that denies a motion to withdraw a
    guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 
    49 Ohio St. 2d 261
    (1979), paragraph two of
    the syllabus.
    {¶6}     A defendant who argues that a guilty plea should be withdrawn because of
    ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was actually
    deficient and that the defendant was prejudiced by it. State v. Xie, 
    62 Ohio St. 3d 521
    , 524, citing
    Lockhart at 57, 59. With respect to the deficient performance of counsel, the defendant must
    establish deficiency in the performance of counsel “so serious that counsel was not functioning
    as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington,
    
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 (1984). The defendant must also demonstrate prejudice in connection with
    the guilty plea itself. Lockhart at 58-59. “In other words, in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’
    requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
    counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” 
    Id. at 59.
    The cornerstone of the analysis is whether counsel’s deficient performance precluded the
    defendant from entering a guilty plea that was knowing and voluntary. State v. Atkinson, 9th
    Dist. Medina No. 05CA0079-M, 2006-Ohio-5806, ¶ 11.
    {¶7}      In this case, Mr. Young maintains that had trial counsel pursued the motion to
    suppress, that motion would have been granted, and the State could not have proved the charges
    4
    against him. Mr. Young’s arguments, however, are hampered by the fact that the record is
    virtually silent with respect to the nature of the motion to suppress. The motion to suppress itself
    did not set forth Mr. Young’s arguments with particularity, and he pleaded guilty before the
    motion proceeded to a hearing. Mr. Young’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea and affidavit in
    support are equally unhelpful because they fail to identify any specific facts that tend to
    demonstrate that a manifest injustice has occurred. See State v. Gegia, 
    157 Ohio App. 3d 112
    ,
    2004-Ohio-2124, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).
    {¶8}    What the limited record on appeal does support, however, is trial counsel’s
    reasoned opinion regarding the weaknesses of the motion to suppress in light of the generous
    plea offer that Mr. Young had received from the State. The record also supports the conclusion
    that the trial court thoroughly reviewed the nature and consequences of the guilty plea with Mr.
    Young. In the course of the colloquy, Mr. Young affirmed that he understood that the motion to
    suppress was being withdrawn and that he was satisfied with the performance of his attorney.
    Based on the record before us, therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its
    discretion by denying Mr. Young’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing.
    {¶9}    Mr. Young’s second assignment of error is overruled.
    III.
    {¶10} Mr. Young’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the trial court
    is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    5
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
    of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellant.
    CARLA MOORE
    FOR THE COURT
    HENSAL, P. J.
    WHITMORE, J.
    CONCUR.
    APPEARANCES:
    PAUL M. GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
    SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RACHEL M. RICHARDSON, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 27577

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ohio 4973

Judges: Moore

Filed Date: 12/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/2/2015