State v. Peterseim
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | CORRIGAN; JACKSON, P. J., and KRUPANSKY |
| Citation | 22 O.O.3d 341,68 Ohio App.2d 211,428 N.E.2d 863 |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1980 |
| Parties | , 22 O.O.3d 341 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PETERSEIM, Appellant. * |
Page 211
v.
PETERSEIM, Appellant. *
1. Although a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed after sentence has been imposed, should be granted only to correct manifest injustice, a motion to withdraw filed before sentencing should be freely allowed.
2. Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw is limited to a determination of abuse of discretion, regardless whether the motion to withdraw is filed before or after sentencing.
3. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw: (1) where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion, and (4) where the record reveals that the court gave full and fair consideration to the plea withdrawal request.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Michael F. Boller, Sidney, and Mr. John R. Vintilla, Cleveland, for appellant.
CORRIGAN, Judge.
On February 28, 1978, defendant-appellant, William T. Peterseim, was indicted for one count of aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01), three counts of attempted murder (R.C. 2903.02 and 2923.02), one count of obstruction of justice (R.C. 2921.32) and one count of tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12). On July 31, 1978, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter
Page 212
(R.C. 2903.03), three counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) and one count of tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12). Before accepting the guilty plea, the trial court extensively questioned appellant, his attorneys and the prosecutor, and, in so doing, ascertained that appellant entered his plea voluntarily, that he understood the nature of the charges against him and the nature of the crimes to which he was pleading guilty, and that he was aware that he was waiving his constitutional and statutory rights.On September 14, 1978, six weeks after the court accepted his guilty plea, appellant retained new counsel and filed a motion to withdraw the plea. Appellant admitted that the plea was "freely and voluntarily made, with no coercion, threats or promises", but asserted that he pled guilty only because he respected the advice of his attorneys and not because he personally felt guilty. While appellant admitted that his attorneys' advice was sound, he nevertheless contended that "his abiding certainty of innocence demands that he stand trial".
On September 26 and 27 of 1978, the trial court conducted a lengthy hearing on the motion to withdraw. At the conclusion of the hearing the court overruled appellant's motion, found him guilty and sentenced him to seven to twenty-five years imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter, three concurrent terms of two to fifteen years imprisonment for the felonious assaults and two to ten years imprisonment for tampering with evidence. The court directed that the [428 N.E.2d 865] terms for voluntary manslaughter, tampering with evidence, and the felonious assaults were to run consecutively. On appeal appellant assigns two errors for this court's review:
"I. The court abused its discretion in refusing defendant the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Mason, 5:19-cv-00597
...the weight of potential punishment, and withdraw the plea if the sentence were unexpectedly severe. * * * ” State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A. 9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667. {¶ 16} In the case sub judice, appellant now contends he ......
-
State v. Howard, No. 16CA3762
...plea will prejudice the state. State v. McNeil , 146 Ohio App.3d 173, 176, 765 N.E.2d 884 (1st Dist. 2001), citing State v. Peterseim , 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 214, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980), and State v. Fish , 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995) ; e.g., State v. Jo......
-
State v. Thrower, Nos. 14044
...manifest injustice. Crim.R. 32.1; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 3 O.O.3d 402, 361 N.E.2d 1324; State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 22 O.O.3d 341, 428 N.E.2d As previously stated, the Throwers were sentenced on the substantive charges and the forfeiture of one hundred ......
-
State v. Smith, Case No. 2010-CA-00335
...the weight of potential punishment, and withdraw the plea if the sentence were unexpectedly severe. * * *" State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 213, 428 N.E.2d 863, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667. {¶22} Importantly, "an undue delay between the occurre......
-
Hill v. Mason, 5:19-cv-00597
...the weight of potential punishment, and withdraw the plea if the sentence were unexpectedly severe. * * * ” State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A. 9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667. {¶ 16} In the case sub judice, appellant now contends he ......
-
State v. Howard, 16CA3762
...plea will prejudice the state. State v. McNeil , 146 Ohio App.3d 173, 176, 765 N.E.2d 884 (1st Dist. 2001), citing State v. Peterseim , 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 214, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980), and State v. Fish , 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995) ; e.g., State v. Jo......
-
State v. Thrower, s. 14044
...manifest injustice. Crim.R. 32.1; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 3 O.O.3d 402, 361 N.E.2d 1324; State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 22 O.O.3d 341, 428 N.E.2d As previously stated, the Throwers were sentenced on the substantive charges and the forfeiture of one hundred ......
-
State v. Smith, Case No. 2010-CA-00335
...the weight of potential punishment, and withdraw the plea if the sentence were unexpectedly severe. * * *" State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 213, 428 N.E.2d 863, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667. {¶22} Importantly, "an undue delay between the occurre......