State v. Caraballo, 84-1265
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; CELEBREZZE; JONES, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting for WRIGHT |
| Citation | 477 N.E.2d 627,17 Ohio St.3d 66 |
| Parties | , 17 O.B.R. 132 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CARABALLO, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1265,84-1265 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
Page 66
v.
CARABALLO, Appellant.
Page 67
Gregory W. Happ, Pros. Atty., Dean Holman, Judith A. Cross and Reginald S. Kramer, Medina, for appellee.
Jerome Emoff and Thomas M. Shaughnessey, Cleveland, for appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue presented upon appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the felony charge of drug trafficking. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the court's ruling.
After a defendant has been sentenced, a court may permit withdrawal of a plea only to correct a manifest injustice. Crim.R. 32.1. The burden of establishing the existence of such injustice is upon the defendant. State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 [3 O.O.3d 402], paragraph one of the syllabus. The logic behind this precept is to discourage a defendant from pleading guilty to test the weight of potential reprisal, and later withdraw the plea if the sentence was unexpectedly severe. State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 213, 428 N.E.2d 863 [22 O.O.3d 341], quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667.
Appellant argues that his state of mind, caused by emotional debilitation and the residual effects of drug abuse, prevented his plea from being voluntary and knowledgeable. He contends that his appreciation for the consequences of his actions was severely impaired by his habitual drug dependency and the trial judge committed error in overruling his motion.
Our review of this matter is somewhat limited as a motion made pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. It is that court which determines the credibility of a defendant's claim in support of the motion. Smith, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus.
A review of the record herein clearly discloses that the trial court did not perpetrate an abuse of discretion. Prior to accepting the guilty plea, the trial judge extensively examined appellant concerning all aspects within Crim.R. 11. At the hearing held on his motion, appellant testified that he stopped using narcotic drugs two to three weeks before entering his guilty plea, and that he was not under the influence of any drug on the day that he pled guilty. In addition, appellant stated that he fully understood the questions asked of him by the judge concerning the plea.
While we recognize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Mason, 5:19-cv-00597
...decision under Crim.R. 32.1 is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627. In order to find an abuse of that discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or ......
-
State v. Riley, Case No. 16CA29
...upon a showing of manifest injustice.6 State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 2004-Ohio-6894, 820 N.E.2d 355, ¶26; State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). In general, a "manifest injustice" means "a clearPage 9and openly unjust act." State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreine......
-
State v. Romero, No. 2017-0915
...an unsatisfactory 129 N.E.3d 416 sentence.1 State v. Smith , 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) ; see State v. Caraballo , 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). Here, Romero received a relatively lenient sentence that he is willing to forgo in order to withdraw his plea. ......
-
State v. Stumpf, No. 86-1118
...32.1; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 3 O.O.3d 402, 361 N.E.2d 1324, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 17 OBR 132, 477 N.E.2d 627, 628. Further, "[a] motion made pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is addressed to the sound discretion of the tria......
-
Hill v. Mason, 5:19-cv-00597
...decision under Crim.R. 32.1 is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627. In order to find an abuse of that discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or ......
-
State v. Riley, Case No. 16CA29
...upon a showing of manifest injustice.6 State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 2004-Ohio-6894, 820 N.E.2d 355, ¶26; State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). In general, a "manifest injustice" means "a clearPage 9and openly unjust act." State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreine......
-
State v. Romero, 2017-0915
...an unsatisfactory 129 N.E.3d 416 sentence.1 State v. Smith , 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) ; see State v. Caraballo , 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). Here, Romero received a relatively lenient sentence that he is willing to forgo in order to withdraw his plea. ......
-
State v. Stumpf, 86-1118
...32.1; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 3 O.O.3d 402, 361 N.E.2d 1324, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 17 OBR 132, 477 N.E.2d 627, 628. Further, "[a] motion made pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is addressed to the sound discretion of the tria......