Appeals court affirms man’s conviction

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

LIMA — The conviction of a Willshire man on sex-related charges has been affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Third District Court of Appeals.

On June 16, 2020, Joshua Wolfe had pleaded guilty to four counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, each a felony of the fourth degree, and two counts of sexual imposition, each a misdemeanor of the third degree, in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court in exchange for the dismissal of 20 other counts, which included rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition.

A little over a month later, on July 27, Wolfe filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied on August 21, 2020.

On September 24, 2020, Wolfe was sentenced to 18 months in prison on each disseminating count and 90 days in jail on each sexual imposition count. The prison sentences were to run consecutive to one another for a total prison sentence of 72 months (six years). Wolfe was also adjudged a Tier 1 sex offender.

Wolfe then filed an appeal of the sentence on October 13, 2020, stating that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

In his appellate court decision, Judge William Zimmerman stated that the appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion.

“An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably,” Judge Zimmerman wrote, adding that an appeals court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of a trial court.

Judge Zimmerman said that, while defendants may file a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea — and a court may grant the motion — defendants do not have the “absolute right” to withdraw a guilty plea. Instead, a trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether a “reasonable and legitimate basis” exists for withdrawing the guilty plea.

When reviewing such decisions, this time by the local Common Pleas Court, an appellate court considers several factors, including whether the withdrawal will prejudice the prosecution, the representation afforded to a defendant by legal counsel, the extent of the hearing to withdraw the guilty pleas, whether a trial court gave full and fair consideration of the notion, whether the timing of the motion was reasonable, the stated reasons for the motion, whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences, and whether the person accused was perhaps not guilty or had an adequate defense to the charges.

In Wolfe’s case, his argument mostly focuses on the extent of the hearing held and whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences.

Judge Zimmerman noted that all guilty pleas must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. That means the trial court must do the following things before accepting a guilty plea:

1. Determine the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved.
2. Inform the defendant of, and determine if the defendant understands, the effect of a guilty plea, and that the court may then proceeding with sentencing.
3. Inform the defendant, and determine if the defendant understands, that by the guilty plea, he waives his right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, to obtain witnesses in his favor, and to require the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during a trial in which the defendant does not have to testify against himself.

“A trial court must strictly comply with Criminal Rule 11 and orally advise a defendant before accepting a felony plea that the plea waives the defendant’s constitutional rights,” Judge Zimmerman wrote. “When a trial court fails to strictly comply with this duty, the defendant’s plea is invalid.”

Wolfe contended that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because “he believed that he would be sentenced to a period of community control and that his bond would be modified prior to sentencing.”

He also asserted that that the trial court “failed to ensure that [he] accurately understood the consequences of entering a guilty plea.”

In his decision, Judge Zimmerman said Wolfe’s arguments were without merit, noting that the court substantially complied with the required notifications and also clearly stated the penalties the defendant could face if he pleaded guilty to the charges in the plea agreement.

“Importantly, Wolfe unequivocally stated that he understood that he was subject to a potential prison term, as well as a sex-offender classification, as a result of pleading guilty” to the charges in the indictment and prosecutor’s bill of information.

Judge Zimmerman also noted that, although Wolfe denied during the presentence investigation that he had sex with the victims in the case, despite that denial, the investigation reflects that law enforcement separately interviewed the minor victims and that their “stories were consistent” that Wolfe had forced them to watch pornography and fondled and had sex with them.

Therefore, the appeals court decided, Wolfe’s guilty pleas were “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” and that the presentence investigation reflected the defendant was guilty of the charges to which he was pleading.

Judges John Willamowski and Mark Miller concurred in the decision.