State v. Shephard

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 2010

Syllabus

Sexual assault two victims DNA evidence guilty plea presentence motion to withdraw plea consecutive sentence speedy trial. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his plea. The appellant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceeding and was afforded a full Crim.R. 11 plea hearing before entering his plea. At the plea hearing, appellant indicated that he understood the nature of the charges and the possible penalties. Appellant was also afforded a complete and impartial hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. The record further demonstrated that the victims would be prejudiced if, after three years since the charges had been filed against the appellant, he were permitted to withdraw his plea, especially because there was no new evidence that had come to light and DNA evidence tied appellant to the crimes. The record demonstrates that the trial court gave appellant's motion to withdraw his plea full and fair consideration. The request was nothing more than a change of heart, which is insufficient to vacate a plea. The sentence was not contrary to law. The trial court's imposition of consecutive terms reflected the harm caused to each of the two victims. The trial court made the required findings for the imposition of consecutive terms, the record supports them, and the sentence was not contrary to law. Further, the trial court imposed sentences within the statutory sentencing ranges and the sentence was not excessive. Appellant's plea and failure to raise a speedy trial violation in the trial court waives review of statutory speedy trial. Notwithstanding waiver, we find no violation of appellant's statutory right to a speedy trial. Further, under a plain error review for a constitutional speedy trial violation, we likewise find no violation.