State v. Terrell

[Cite as State v. Terrell, 2026-Ohio-3830.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-26-017 Appellee Trial Court No. 2024-CR-0422 v. Samuel Terrell DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 29, 2026 ***** Kevin J. Baxter, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David L. Doughten, for appellant. ***** ZMUDA, J. I. Introduction {¶ 1} Appellant, Samuel Terrell, appeals from the March 20, 2026 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to prison after denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to murder, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.  A. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On October 24, 2024, an Erie County, Ohio grand jury indicted appellant on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C 2903.01(A) and 2929.02(A), an unclassified felony. Appellant appeared for arraignment on October 25, 2024, and entered a not guilty plea to the charged offense. {¶ 3} On November 8, 2024, the grand jury issued a supplemental indictment charging appellant of one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A) and (B), a first-degree felony; one count of having a weapon while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B), a third-degree felony; one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and (D), and R.C. 2929.02 (D), an unclassified felony; one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and (D), and R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony; two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D)(1)(a), each a second-degree felony; two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D)(1)(a), each a second-degree felony; one count of attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02, R.C. 2903.02(B) and (D), and R.C. 2929.02(B), a first-degree felony; and one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) and (B), a third-degree felony. Each of the murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary charges included a specification alleging appellant had committed the offenses while displaying, brandishing, or using a firearm to facilitate the offense in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A). The tampering with evidence offense included a specification that appellant had committed the offense while in possession of a firearm in violation of R.C. 2941.141(A). Appellant entered a not 2. guilty plea to these additional charges at his supplemental arraignment on November 15, 2024. {¶ 4} On February 19, 2026, following negotiations with the State, appellant appeared for a change of plea hearing. At that time, appellant agreed to enter a guilty plea to one count of murder with the included firearm specification, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of felonious assault. In exchange, the State requested, and the trial court dismissed, all remaining charges. Appellant and the State agreed to a recommended sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years on the murder offense with a mandatory 3-year sentence for the firearm specification. The State also agreed to recommend that any prison terms imposed on the remaining offenses should run concurrently to the life sentence. The trial court completed the required Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and accepted appellant’s guilty pleas in accordance with the agreement. The matter was set for sentencing on March 16, 2026. {¶ 5} Appellant filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on March 13, 2026. Appellant’s motion indicated that he “ha[d] contemplated changing his plea for several weeks and has instructed undersigned counsel to file” the motion. He stated that he had a “reasonable and legitimate basis” for withdrawing his plea—that is, “he would like to maintain his innocence and go to trial rather than plead to something he maintains he did not do.” The trial court scheduled a hearing on appellant’s motion to take place immediately prior to his scheduled sentencing. {¶ 6} At the hearing, appellant reiterated his desire to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. He argued that he had maintained his innocence during the entire 18- 3. month period between his indictment and his guilty plea. Appellant did not allege that the plea had not been entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. Instead, he simply stated that “while he did enter a guilty plea * * * he thought about it and would like to go to trial in this case.” The State, in response, cited State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) to identify the factors on which the trial court should resolve appellant’s motion. The State indicated that each of these factors weighed against permitting appellant to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied appellant’s motion and proceeded with sentencing. {¶ 7} On the murder offense, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years, plus 3 years on the related firearm specification. The trial court also sentenced appellant to an indefinite prison term of 10 to 15 years on the aggravated burglary offense and an indefinite prison term of 7 to 10.5 years on the felonious assault offense. The court ordered appellant to serve the prison terms for the offenses concurrently but consecutive to the prison term for the firearm specification as required by law, resulting in an aggregate prison term of life in prison, plus three years, with the possibility of parole after 15 years.1 The trial court’s judgment was memorialized on March 20, 2026. 1 Appellant was also convicted of a violation of the terms of his community control that was imposed on a previous conviction. The trial court ordered appellant to serve the underlying sentences concurrently with the sentence imposed for the community control violation. Appellant did not appeal from the judgment imposing the other sentence and it is not part of this appeal. 4.  B. Assignment of Error {¶ 8} Appellant timely appealed and asserts the following error for our review: 1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas filed prior to sentencing without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing or providing the basis of its ruling. II. Law and Analysis {¶ 9} Appellant’s single assignment of error alleges that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his presentence motion to withdraw his plea without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.2 Crim.R. 32.1 governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea or no contest and provides, generally, that such a motion “may be made only before the sentence is imposed[.]” State v. Callahan, 2024-Ohio-5621, ¶ 32 (6th Dist.). There is a presumption in favor of granting presentence motions to withdraw and those motions should be “freely and liberally granted.” Id., citing State v. Barnes, 2022-Ohio-4486, ¶ 21. However, “a defendant does not have an absolute right” to withdraw their plea. Id. at ¶ 33. “Before ruling on a defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw, the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawing the plea.” Id. at ¶ 34, citing Barnes at ¶ 13. “A mere change of heart is not a sufficient reason to permit withdrawal of a plea.” Id. at ¶ 33, citing State v. Acosta, 2 While appellant’s assigned error also alleges that the trial court erred by failing to provide a basis for its ruling, his argument focuses solely on the lack of hearing. He offers only a single sentence challenging the contents of the trial court’s order, stating “[t]he trial court did not provide the basis for his denying the motion on the record or in a written opinion.” App.R. 16(B)(7) requires appellants to provide an argument in support of their assigned error “with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” Because appellant failed to make this argument, we disregard it in accordance with App.R. 12(A)(2). 5. 2016-Ohio-5698, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.). Whether a defendant has a legitimate basis is “within the sound discretion of the trial court” and we review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at ¶ 34. {¶ 10} Here, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting a “full evidentiary hearing” to determine whether his plea was constitutionally valid. The record clearly shows that the trial court conducted the hearing required pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Appellant’s argument is that the trial court’s hearing was insufficient to determine “whether appellant was induced to plea without his full knowledge of the discovery provided or because he was just worn out by the length of time it was taking to have a jury trial.” Appellant concedes that the merits of his argument are “mere speculation” and only requests that this court remand this matter to determine whether this argument constitutes a legitimate basis on which the trial court should have granted his motion to withdraw his plea. We deny appellant’s request. {¶ 11} Appellant’s argument that he was improperly induced to enter a guilty plea challenges whether he entered that plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Review of the record shows that he did not make this argument before the trial court either in his motion to withdraw or during the hearing on his motion. Appellant’s motion even described the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy to be “satisfactory.” It is unclear how the trial court’s failure to consider an argument appellant did not make in his motion to withdraw could constitute an abuse of discretion in denying that motion. Moreover, appellant does not assign error to the trial court’s acceptance of his plea or make any such argument in this appeal beyond his “mere speculation.” Further, he does not cite any 6. authority that obligates trial courts to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the validity of an already accepted guilty plea in the complete absence of any specific and credible factual allegations that, if true, would establish a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawal. {¶ 12} As a result, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing, a hearing that appellant did not request and that the law does not require in the absence of any allegations (let alone specific, factual allegations) regarding the validity of the plea colloquy. Accordingly, appellant’s argument that the trial court erred when it failed to conduct that hearing is unfounded and we find his single assignment of error not well-taken. III. Conclusion {¶ 13} For these reasons, we find appellant’s single assignment of error not well- taken and we affirm the March 20, 2026 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. {¶ 14} Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed. 7.  Court of Appeals No. E-26-017 Trial Court No. 2024-CR-0422 State of Ohio v. Samuel Terrell A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. Christine E. Mayle, J JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J CONCUR. JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/. 8.