The Akron Legal News

Appeals court says beer thief can't withdraw guilty plea

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 17, 2014

The 8th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which overruled a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The defendant, Michael Barrett, was charged with burglary in January 2013 after he intruded in a couple’s home, confronted the residents and then left after stealing beer.

Barrett then fled in his car and led police on a chase before he was found hiding in a garage and arrested.

On the day of his trial, Barrett pleaded guilty to third-degree felony burglary and a charge of petty theft was dropped in exchange.

However, on the day of sentencing, Barrett orally moved to withdraw his plea and the matter proceeded to a hearing after which the trial court denied the motion and sentenced Barrett to 24 months in prison.

Upon appeal, Barrett contended in his sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea.

According to him, his counsel was ineffective and the guilty plea should have been vacated.

“In general, a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted,” wrote Judge Kathleen Keough on behalf of the district’s three-judge appellate panel. “It is well established, however, that a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing.”

The appellate panel noted that the trial court held a hearing to determine whether there was a reasonable, legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea, as required under Crim.R. 32.1.

It also held that the decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a plea lies within a trial court’s discretion.

“Barrett contends his plea should be vacated because he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he did not have a full understanding of his potential for criminal liability under a theory of complicity,” wrote Judge Keough. “In order to prevail on this claim, Barrett must meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Barrett was required to prove that his lawyer was not “reasonably competent” and that the advice he gave was not “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.”

The court of appeals reviewed the transcript of the proceedings at Barrett’s plea hearing, where the record indicated that defense counsel stated that she had advised Barrett of his rights and the evidence that the state would have presented if the case had gone to trial.

The court then questioned both parties about the evidence of complicity that could have been presented if a trial had occurred.

“Following this extensive inquiry, the court stated it was satisfied that there was a factual basis for the plea,” wrote Judge Keough. “All of these facts were set forth on the record, in open court, in the presence of Barrett and on the day of the trial.”

The trial court then proceeded to engage Barrett in a colloquy where he stated that he “understood everything that has been said at the hearing so far.”

The court of appeals found that Barrett’s claim that his counsel was ineffective failed because he could not demonstrate how his attorney’s performance was deficient.

“Rather, the record shows that Barrett, after discussing his case with non-lawyer acquaintances, merely had a change of heart,” wrote Keough.

In his motion to withdraw, Barrett argued that he was actually innocent, that the judge had been a victim of burglary in the past, and that no fingerprint evidence existed.

The appellate panel found little merit to those arguments and held that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the judge exerted any bias or that his own personal experiences affected the court’s ability to be fair and impartial.

“Barrett’s arguments are were not sufficient to warrant the withdrawal of his knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrett’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea,” Judge Keough concluded.

Judges Mary Boyle and Melody Stewart joined Judge Keough to form the majority and affirm the judgment of the Cuyahoga County court.

The case is cited State v. Barrett, 2014-Ohio-1234.

[Back]