from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2018
M. Brown for Appellant
E. Emerick for Appellee
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
Liles filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2018. (Doc.
No. 32). He raises one assignment of error.
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).
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." (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.).
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
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),