Appeal of plea withdrawal denial rejected

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

A local man discovered that guilty pleas can’t always be withdrawn when the Ohio Third District Court of Appeals rejected his appeal based primarily on that argument.

Joshua A. Lane of Van Wert recently had his prison sentence upheld by the appellate court in a decision written by Judge John Williamowski.

Lane originally changed his plea to guilty on a charge of trafficking in drugs on April 20, 2012, and was found guilty of that charge in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court by Charles D. Steele. On May 9, 2012, Lane’s first scheduled sentencing hearing, Judge Steele noted that he planned to sentence Lane to the Western Ohio Regional Treatment and Habilitation (WORTH) Center in Lima. However, Lane told the judge that he was on Methadone and would need time to complete the weaning process from Methdone before he could begin a sentence at the WORTH Center. It was further noted that stopping Methadone suddenly could be dangerous to Lane’s health.

Judge Steele had expressed concern that the WORTH Center would even accept Lane, based on his Methadone treatment, noting that there was a chance he would be returned to prison anyway because he was already on post release control from a previous offense and his conviction on the new drug charge would be a violation of that probation term.

Sentencing was then continued to allow further research on the Methadone weaning process and the effect on Lane’s health if Methadone treatments were discontinued.

On June 5, 2012, the Van Wert County Adult Probation Department filed an affidavit stating that Lane had violated the terms of his probation after a Van Wert police officer saw him selling heroin. On June 6, 2012, was jailed on a $10,000 cash bond and a hearing was set for June 12, 2012, on the probation violation. Arrangements were also made to administer Methadone to Lane while in jail.

At his probation violation hearing, Lane was found guilty of violating his probation and ordered him held without bond pending sentencing. Judge Steele again noted that Lane would not be eligible for the WORTH Center if he were still on Methadone.

The Van Wert County Prosecutor’s Office also noted that there could be pending charges related to the alleged heroin trafficking offense, in addition to probation violation charges, and noted that Lane had not started any weaning process to reduce his Methadone dosage.

The sentencing hearing, originally scheduled for June 19, 2012, was continued because of the pending matters.

On July 3 of last year Lane and his attorney asked to have that plea withdrawn and a hearing was scheduled on that request for July 16, 2012. During that hearing, Lane testified first that he “thought I was getting out on EMHA” when making his guilty plea, and also noted that he withdrew the guilty plea “because I wanted to see my grandpa before he died and he’s getting buried right now.” When asked whether he understood the charges, Lane noted: “I understood the charges; I just wanted to get it over with.”

When asked if there was any new evidence to support withdrawal of his guilty plea, Lane merely stated: “I feel I wasn’t guilty.” When asked if there anything Lane had discovered, or any piece of evidence he could offer, and the defendant noted, “I don’t know.”

Judge Steele later issued a written opinion denying Lane’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, noting he was represented by “highly competent counsel” and noting that Lane had discussed the plea and charges “fully and completely” with his attorney. The judge also noted that Lane “did not state specific reasons in his motion why he wanted to withdraw his plea” or any evident that he was, perhaps, not guilty.

Sentencing was held August 20, 2012, at which time Lane’s attorney noted that Lane was trying to overcome his addiction, and asked Judge Steele to consider an IPP program or the WORTH Center.

Lane also claimed that his state parole officer indicated that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority did not want his post-release control revoked. The prosecutor’s office said it had received different input from the state parole authorities.

Judge Steele then sentenced Lane to nine months in prison on the current case, with credit for 125 days served while awaiting final disposition of the case, also sentenced him to 546 days remaining on his post-release control, to be served consecutively to the first sentence.

Lane, through attorney Kelly Rauch, cites three assignments of error in his appeal, noting that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, that Lane’s guilty plea was not voluntarily made, due to the state’s failure to abide by the terms of the plea agreement and that Lane was denied the right to effective legal counsel.

The appellate court first noted that motions to withdraw guilty pleas are not granted automatically. “ A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing,” the appellate court cited from State vs. Zie, adding, “A trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawal of the plea.”

Judge Willamowski noted that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel; where the defendant was afforded a full hearing before entering the plea; when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion; and where the record shows the court gave fair and full consideration to the request to withdraw the plea.

Judge Willamowski cited several prior cases that noted: “A change of heart or mistaken belief about the plea is not a reasonable basis requiring a trial court to permit the defendant to withdraw a plea,” in making his decision to deny the first assignment of error.

The appellate decision also noted that, while the decision to reject the guilty plea was made only 19 days after Lane’s guilty plea was accepted, Lane was in court on May 9, June 9 and June 12, 2012, and the case and sentencing options were discussed at those hearings.

“Not one time did he (Lane) raise the matter of withdrawing his plea, not did he show any concern in the fact that the trial court was discussing options for sentencing that did not include EMHA,” Judge Willamowski noted. “It was not until Lane came to the rescheduled sentencing hearing on July 3, 2012, that the motion to withdraw his guilty plea was tendered, almost three months after his original plea.”

The appellate decision noted that it would have been prejudicial to the prosecution to start over again after the passage of that much time, along with all of the trial court’s time invested in trying to resolve the matter and accommodate Lane’s Methadone needs.

Judge Willamowski also noted that, while Lane claimed he said he was innocent during the sentencing hearing, the court record shows that the closest he came to testifying he might not be guilty was to say he didn’t “feel” that he was guilty.

“The trial court gave Lane great latitude in questioning him with rather leading questions, but Lane was unable to state that he had discovered any new evidence, or even give any reason, that would support a belief that he was innocent,” Judge Willamowski stated in his appellate decision.

Lane’s second and third assignments of error were also rejected, with Judge Willamowski noting that, in the plea agreement, Lane acknowledged that a prison term of up to 12 months could be handed down and that the sentence was “solely a matter of control of the judge.”

The appellate judge also rejected the third assignment, noting that the trial record failed to show that Lane’s attorney’s actions were deficient in any way.

“Therefore, we find that Lane received the assistance of qualified counsel and was not prejudiced by the actions or inactions of his counsel,” Judge Willamowski stated in rejecting Lane’s third assignment of error.

Judges Vernon Preston and Steven Shaw also concurred with the decision.