Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hendricks

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

November 13, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. HENDRICKS Defendant-Appellant

         CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-2015-0161

          For Plaintiff-Appellee GERALD ANDERSON II 27 North Fifth Street Zanesville, OH

          For Defendant-Appellant RICHARD CROSBY III 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202

          Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Judge.

          OPINION

          GWIN, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellant Christopher M. Hendricks ["Hendricks"] appeals from the March 15, 2017 re-sentencing entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶2} Hendricks entered guilty pleas to: Count I, aggravated burglary pursuant to R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), a felony of the first degree; Counts II through V, kidnapping pursuant to R.C. 2905.01 (A)(2), all felonies of the first degree; Counts VI through VIII, kidnapping pursuant to R.C. 2905.01(A)(3), all felonies of the first degree; Counts IX through XIII, aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01 (A)(1), all felonies of the first degree; and Count XIV, having weapons while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Counts I through XIII are accompanied by firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145. See, State v. Hendricks, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0010, 2017-Ohio-259');">2017-Ohio-259 ["Hendricks I"].

         {¶3} Hendricks raised six assignments of error on appeal. Hendricks I. We overruled five of Hendricks' assignments of error; however based on our decision in State v. Richard-Bey, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2010-Ohio-0051, we found "the trial court's language in the sentencing entry does not adequately comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2). Appellant's sixth assignment of error is sustained and this matter is remanded for resentencing."[1]

         {¶4} Prior to re-sentencing, Hendricks filed a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea in the trial court on February 17, 2017. Hendricks also filed on the same date a "Notice of Intention to Plead Affirmative Defenses."

         {¶5} In his written motion, Hendricks set forth no grounds in support of his motion to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea. Hendricks' one paragraph motion to plead Affirmative Defenses stated, "that he may use a defense in this matter the affirmative defenses of self-defense, duress and/or necessity."

         {¶6} The trial court addressed the motions at the re-sentencing hearing held February 27, 2017,

MR. CROSBY: Your Honor, again, good afternoon. Pending before you there is a motion to withdraw the plea -- the plea previously entered. Based upon Criminal Rule 32 and precedent, there's sufficient reasons which basically we feel would warrant to withdraw the plea.
THE COURT: What would that be?
MR. CROSBY: Your Honor, first off, Mr. Hendricks entered the plea. He didn't enter it knowingly, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.