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. Liles

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen

July 29, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JERRY R. LILES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

          Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2018 0304

          Andrea M. Brown for Appellant

          Jana E. Emerick for Appellee

          OPINION

          PRESTON, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jerry R. Liles ("Liles"), appeals the December 11, 2018 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} On July 11, 2018, Liles's vehicle was stopped by an officer of the Lima Police Department after the officer observed Liles commit a marked-lanes violation as he traveled along East Kibby Street in Lima, Ohio. (Doc. No. 2). Following field-sobriety testing, Liles was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs ("OVI"). (Id.). After Liles was arrested, an inventory search of his vehicle uncovered prescription pills located in the center console. (Id.).

         {¶3} On August 16, 2018, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Liles on two counts: Count One of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), (G)(1)(d), a fourth-degree felony, and Count Two of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony. (Doc. No. 4). Count One of the indictment included a specification for a mandatory additional prison term for felony OVI violation under R.C. 2941.1413(A). (Id.). On August 27, 2018, Liles appeared for arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the counts and specification of the indictment. (Doc. No. 11).

         {¶4} A change of plea hearing was held on September 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 17); (Sept. 12, 2018 Tr. at 1). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Liles withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to Counts One and Two. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17); (Sept. 12, 2018 Tr. at 19-20). In exchange, the State agreed to recommend dismissal of the specification to Count One. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17); (Sept. 12, 2018 Tr. at 1-4). The trial court accepted Liles's guilty pleas, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence investigation. (Doc. No. 17); (Sept. 12, 2018 Tr. at 20). The trial court also dismissed the specification to Count One. (Doc. No. 17); (Sept. 12, 2018 Tr. at 20). A sentencing hearing was scheduled for October 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 17).

         {¶5} On September 18, 2018, Liles filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. (Doc. No. 20). In support of his motion, Liles maintained that "he does not drink or use drugs and thus has a defense to the charge." (Id.). On November 9, 2018, the State filed a memorandum in opposition to Liles's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. (Doc. No. 25).

         {¶6} A hearing on Liles's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was held on November 16, 2018. (Doc. No. 27); (Nov. 16, 2018 Tr. at 1). On November 21, 2018, the trial court denied Liles's motion. (Doc. No. 27).

         {¶7} On December 11, 2018, the trial court sentenced Liles to two years of community control on Count One and two years of community control on Count Two, to be served concurrently. (Doc. No. 31). The trial court also sentenced Liles to 66 days in the Allen County Jail with credit for 66 days served. (Id.). Finally, the trial court ordered Liles to participate in a drug and alcohol treatment program, and it suspended Liles's driver's license for three years. (Id.).

         {¶8} Liles filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2018. (Doc. No. 32). He raises one assignment of error.

         Assignment of Error

         The trial court erred in not allowing defendant-appellant to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 when the trial court failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2).

         {¶9} In his assignment of error, Liles argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Specifically, Liles argues that "the trial court's Crim.R. 11 colloquy * * * evidences that his change of plea was not made knowingly and intelligently based upon the trial court's failure to inform [him] of all of the potential penalties he faced with respect to the OVI charge."[1] (Appellant's Brief at 5). He contends that if he had been properly informed of all of the potential penalties, "he may have elected to not enter into the plea deal and plead guilty." (Id. at 10). Thus, he argues, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. (Id.).

         {¶10} Crim.R. 32.1 provides a defendant may file a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Generally, "presentence motion[s] to withdraw * * * guilty plea[s] should be freely and liberally granted." State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527 (1992). However, "[a] defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. As a result, a "trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea." Id.

         {¶11} When reviewing a trial court's denial of a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court considers several factors, including: (1) whether the withdrawal will prejudice the prosecution; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the hearing held pursuant to Crim.R. 11; (4) the extent of the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration of the motion; (6) whether the timing of the motion was reasonable; (7) the stated reasons for the motion; (8) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; and (9) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges. State v. Lane, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-10-10, 2010-Ohio-4819, ¶ 21, citing State v. Griffin,141 Ohio App.3d 551, 554 (7th Dist.2001). "None of the factors is determinative on its own and there may be numerous additional aspects 'weighed' in each case." State v. North, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-18, 2015-Ohio-720, ¶ 16, citing Griffin at 554 and State v. Fish,104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995), o ...


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.