Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appellate court rejects burglar's request to change guilty plea

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 23, 2014

A three-judge appellate panel in the 6th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas properly denied a motion from defendant Vashon Goings to withdraw his Alford guilty plea for burglary and attempted felonious assault.

The panel of judges also ruled the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered two 30-month sentences for each count to be served consecutively.

The appellate court’s opinion, authored by Judge Arlene Singer, stated that Goings’ Alford plea was accepted by the trial court on the morning that trial was set to begin.

Two days later, prior to sentencing, Goings filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that granting the motion would not prejudice the prosecution.

“He had witnesses to establish that he had been acting in self-defense regarding the felonious assault charge and that he did not trespass on the property of the victim or commit acts of violence while he was present in the victim’s apartment,” wrote Singer.

Goings also argued that his mental status was so poor at the time he entered his plea that he did not understand the consequences and believed that the maximum penalty he could receive would be six months of incarceration.

At a hearing on his motion, Goings testified that when he entered his plea, he was “full of anxiety” because his case had been pending for nine months.

He said he was told by his attorney that he could only spend a maximum of 90 days in prison.

“He later came to realize that the sentence could be significantly longer,” wrote Judge Singer.

Goings also admitted at the hearing that he had been drinking and using cocaine prior to the day of his scheduled trial.

After he entered his plea, he learned his maximum sentence could be up to six years and “his anxiety significantly increased.”

Goings admitted himself to a mental health ward and told the trial court he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and was taking medication for both, though he did not provide proof of his medical issues.

In direct contradiction to some of Goings’ claims, the court of appeals cited his presentence report which included a statement Goings made to the presentence interviewer that he entered his guilty plea “because the risk of losing (his) case was too high.”

“I was facing 21 years in prison if I lost my case,” he told the interviewer.

A criminal investigator on the case also testified at the hearing, stating that he believed Goings was innocent of some charges and would have presented a meritorious defense of self-defense at trial.

However, the trial court found that there was automatic prejudice to the state if Goings withdrew his guilty plea because the crime occurred more than a year prior to his motion and it would be difficult to gather all of the original witnesses that would have testified.

“The prosecution would have to secure all of the witnesses that were dismissed because appellant entered a plea just before trial began,” wrote Judge Singer.

Additionally, the appellant panel noted that, upon entering his plea, Goings indicated that he understood the nature of the plea and the sentence that could be imposed.

He denied being under the influence of drugs and said he met with his attorney at least 20 times before he decided to plead guilty.

The trial court and the appellate panel agreed that it was doubtful that Going’s “competent counsel” would have informed him that the maximum penalty would be a 90-day sentence.

A signed written plea agreement proved that Goings was informed that his maximum sentence could have been up to 72 months.

“Upon a review of the record, we find the trial court conducted a thorough hearing on the motion to withdraw and gave full and fair consideration to the motion,” wrote Judge Singer. “Therefore, we find that (Goings) failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw the plea.”

The appellate panel proceeded to rule that the trial court properly ordered Goings’ sentences to run consecutively.

“The trial court found the offenses involved in this case were extremely violent and appellant took no responsibility for his actions and continues to see himself as the victim,” wrote Judge Singer.

Goings did not have any record of prior felony offenses but the court did find that he was a multistate offender with 13 misdemeanor convictions, some of which were related to assault.

At his sentencing hearing, the court made specific findings justifying the imposition of consecutive sentences, causing the appellate panel to overrule Goings’ second and final argument.

The judgment of the Lucas County court was affirmed with Presiding Judge Stephen Yarbrough and Judge Mark Pietrykowski joining Singer to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Goings, 2014-Ohio-2322.

[Back]