COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69272,69273,69274,69275, 69276,69277,69278 : STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : PAUL HOLBROOK : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JULY 11, 1996 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case Nos. CR-301661, CR-301719,301754,301763, CR-301933,302691,303444 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. TRACEY K. O'DAY, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 21801 Lakeshore Boulevard CRAIG T. WEINTRAUB, ESQ. Euclid, Ohio 44122 Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street -2- Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -3- PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: Defendant-appellant, Paul Holbrook, appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PRIOR TO DISPOSING OF APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA. Having reviewed the record of the proceedings and the legal arguments presented by the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Paul Holbrook was indicted for seven counts of aggravated robbery with specifications, one count of robbery with specifica- tions, three counts of weapons under disability with specifica- tions, and one count each of possession of criminal tools, failure to comply with the order of a police officer, disrupting public service, and drug abuse (heroin). On December 2, 1993, Holbrook appeared in court and entered into a plea agreement. Holbrook pleaded guilty to all seven counts of aggravated robbery, one count of robbery, and one count of disrupting public service under a plea agreement after the prosecutor stated the maximum penalties associated with each offense. Before accepting Holbrook's guilty pleas, the trial judge engaged Holbrook in dialogue. The trial judge asked Holbrook whether he understood the agreement; he indicated he understood. The trial judge asked Holbrook whether he had been advised by his attorneys; he indicated he had received ample advice. The trial judge asked Holbrook -4- whether he was under the influence of any drugs or narcotics; he answered, "no." The trial judge advised Holbrook of his rights and the consequences of his plea. The trial judge also required Holbrook to orally enter a separate plea for each charge and admit to each specification included in the plea agreement. The remaining charges were dismissed. Holbrook was sentenced as follows: 1) 9 to 15 years for robbery, 2) 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery with 3 years consecutive time for the specification, 3) 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery with 3 years consecutive time for the specification, 4) two consecutive terms of 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery with 3 years consecutive time for the specifications, 5) 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery, 6) 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery with 3 years consecutive time for the specification, 7) 10 to 25 years for aggravated robbery with 3 years consecutive for the specification and 2 to 10 for disrupting public service. The sentences for each case were ordered to run concurrent to each other. More than one year after sentence was imposed, Holbrook filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 and argued his pleas were "***less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntary made as a direct result of defendant's drug induced mental state at the time the pleas were tendered." Holbrook also averred he was under the care of jail medical personnel who "prescribed substantial psychotropic medication for his mental and -5- emotional condition." Holbrook's motion was denied without a hearing. This appeal followed. In his sole assignment of error, Holbrook argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. The standard of review for a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is abuse of discretion. State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable conduct by the trial court. State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521. Crim.R. 32.1 provides: "A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea." In a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea, the trial court does not have a duty to elicit the reasons for defendant's post- sentence motion to withdraw. State v. Smith (Nov. 6, 1990), Franklin App.No. 90AP-411, unreported. It is the defendant's burden to establish a manifest injustice by submitting evidentiary materials or demonstrating through the record that he is entitled to relief. State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67. If the defendant fails to demonstrate a manifest injustice in his motion, then the trial court may deny the motion without a hearing. Garfield Heights v. Veeramani (Mar. 9, 1995), Cuyahoga App.No. 66839. -6- In this case, Holbrook argues he was under the influence of medications for his drug addiction and mental problems when he entered his pleas. In his affidavit, he states his plea was less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made as a direct result of his "drug induced mental state." A careful review of the record, however, demonstrates Holbrook's pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Before accepting the guilty pleas, the trial judge examined Holbrook thoroughly concerning every aspect of Crim.R. 11. The trial judge inquired as to whether he was under the influence of any drugs or narcotics, and Holbrook answered, "no." The trial judge also required Holbrook to orally enter his plea for each and every offense on the record. Finally, Holbrook's four attorneys told the trial judge they believed the pleas to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Holbrook's motion without a hearing. Judgment affirmed. -7- It is ordered that Appellee recover of Appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J., and TIMOTHY E. MCMONAGLE, CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- .