[Cite as State v. Stallworth, 2023-Ohio-3316.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220247
TRIAL NO. B-1705451
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
:
VS. O P I N I O N.
:
GERALD STALLWORTH, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 20, 2023
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Gerald Stallworth, pro se.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
KINSLEY, Judge.
{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant Gerald Stallworth challenges the
trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas for various sex offenses
involving a juvenile victim. Stallworth alleges that he should have been able to
withdraw his pleas, because he was operating under the mistaken belief that he would
be eligible for programs in prison that would enable him to reduce the total length of
his sentence. However, because the record demonstrates that the trial court informed
him that he may be able to participate in programming, not that he would be able to,
and because he was informed at the time of his pleas that any sentence reduction for
programming was required to meet statutory requirements, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Stallworth’s motion.
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶2} In 2017, Stallworth was indicted on 13 counts of unlawful sexual activity
involving a minor. In 2018, in a negotiated agreement with the state, he pleaded guilty
to five counts of rape in exchange for the state dismissing the remaining eight counts.
{¶3} Before it accepted Stallworth’s guilty pleas, the trial court reviewed the
potential punishments that could be imposed on Stallworth. It informed him that the
first of the five rape counts to which he was pleading guilty carried a potential prison
sentence of three to 11 years and that whatever term the court imposed would be
mandatory. With respect to the remaining four counts to which Stallworth pleaded
guilty, the trial court told him that it could impose a term of between five and 11 years
in prison, that each term would be mandatory, and that he would have to serve it. After
going over the total maximum time Stallworth could receive under the plea agreement,
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the trial judge again reiterated that “whatever sentence I impose would be mandatory.”
Stallworth indicated that he understood.
{¶4} The trial court next informed Stallworth about the possibility of earning
credit to reduce the total amount of time he spends in prison: “Though you may be
eligible for additional days of credit, or additional credit under circumstances specified
in Revised Code 2967.193, but those are not automatic, but you’ve got to earn those
pursuant to the criteria in the statute.” Stallworth again said he understood.
{¶5} At a later sentencing hearing, on July 10, 2018, the trial court sentenced
Stallworth to an aggregate prison term of 20 years.
{¶6} More than three years later, in October 2021, Stallworth filed a motion
to withdraw his guilty pleas. In the motion, he alleged that his attorney ineffectively
advised him regarding the nature of his sentences, in that Stallworth believed he would
be eligible for judicial release after ten years and that he would be eligible for earned
credit by participating in programs and classes in prison, which he claims turned out
to be untrue. The trial court denied the motion, and Stallworth now appeals.
Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
{¶7} In a single assignment of error, Stallworth alleges the trial court denied
him due process by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.
We disagree.
{¶8} The decision whether to grant or deny a postsentence motion to
withdraw a guilty plea lies within the trial court’s discretion, which an appellate court
will reverse only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. James, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-210319, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 4456, 8 (Dec. 22, 2021). Under
Crim.R. 32.1, the trial court may grant such a motion to correct a manifest injustice, a
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
standard which the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating. State v. Smith, 49
Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Royal,
1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160666, 2017-Ohio-4146, ¶ 9. Though a trial court is not
required to hold a hearing on every postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, a
hearing is required if facts alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require
that the defendant be allowed to withdraw the plea. (Internal quotation marks and
citations omitted.) State v. Norris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107894, 2019-Ohio-3768,
¶ 26. A postsentence motion to withdraw a plea should only be granted in
extraordinary circumstances. Smith at 264; State v. Testerman, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-010040, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3605, 5 (Aug. 17, 2001).
{¶9} Stallworth argues that he was unaware at that time he pleaded guilty
that his 20-year aggregate sentence would be mandatory. But the trial court advised
him on no fewer than three occasions that each count to which he was pleading carried
mandatory prison time and that he would have to serve the total time imposed by the
court. Stallworth indicated that he understood the mandatory nature of the sentences
before he entered his pleas.
{¶10} Stallworth also argues, both based on statements by the trial court and
unspecified discussions with his attorney outside of court, that he believed he would
be eligible for a sentencing reduction based on his participation in programs and
classes in prison. He represents that he has now been told by prison officials that he
cannot earn credit against his sentences through these programs, despite successfully
participating in them.
{¶11} While we commend Stallworth for his efforts to complete prison
programming, the record reveals no promise of earned credit for doing so. To the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
contrary, the trial court advised Stallworth that he may be able to reduce his sentences
this way, but only if he met certain statutory criteria. The trial court further explained
that this opportunity was “not automatic.”
{¶12} As such, this is not an extraordinary case in which allowing
Stallworth’s guilty pleas to stand would constitute a manifest injustice. Rather, the
record reveals that the trial court advised Stallworth before he elected to plead guilty
both of the fact that his prison time was mandatory and that earned credit through
programming was subject to statutory criteria. The trial court therefore did not abuse
its discretion in denying Stallworth’s postsentence motion to withdraw his plea. See
James, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210319, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 4456, at 9.
{¶13} We accordingly overrule Stallworth’s sole assignment of error and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
5