State v. Chaney

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · 2024 · Criminal Law

Criminal Lawcontinuancesentencingwithdrawal of guilty plearight to counsel of choiceabuse of discretioncontinuancesentencing hearing

Facts

After pleading guilty pursuant to an agreement that included an 18-to-22-year sentencing range, Chaney was scheduled for sentencing on November 1, 2022. After 6:00 p.m. the night before sentencing, newly retained counsel filed a notice of appearance and moved to continue sentencing so she could review discovery to assess a possible motion to withdraw the plea and obtain records for mitigation. At the sentencing hearing, Chaney kept both original and new counsel, original counsel stated he was prepared to proceed, the state objected, and the trial court denied the continuance. The PSI already included information about Chaney's trauma, mental health, education, and substance use, and the court later sentenced him within the agreed range.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Chaney's request to continue the sentencing hearing so newly retained counsel could evaluate a possible motion to withdraw his guilty plea and gather additional mitigation records? Did that denial violate Chaney's right to counsel of his choice?

Rule

A trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In deciding such a motion, the court considers the length of the requested delay, prior continuances, inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, counsel, and the court, whether the reasons are legitimate or instead dilatory or contrived, whether the moving party contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the request, and any other relevant case-specific factors; the ultimate inquiry depends on the circumstances and reasons presented when the request is denied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Devon Price pleaded guilty under an agreement that capped his sentencing exposure at a stated range. Five weeks later, on the evening before sentencing, he retained new counsel, who asked for 21 days to review discovery and consider whether Devon should try to withdraw the plea; original counsel remained prepared to proceed.

If the trial court denies the continuance, which is the strongest basis for affirmance on appeal?

Explanation. A denial of a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion under the Unger factors and the specific circumstances presented to the trial court at the time of the request. A key consideration is whether the moving party contributed to the need for delay. Where the defendant had substantial time before sentencing to change counsel and assess the plea but waited until the eve of the hearing, the trial court may reasonably deny the request. The majority rejected any mechanical rule requiring delay merely because new counsel appeared. (Derived from State v. Chaney (n.d.).)