On September 16, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review State v. Shepherd, a case addressing a change of plea. Only Justice Patrick Fischer dissented.
When a defendant pleads guilty to criminal charges, Ohio’s Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a defendant to seek the withdrawal of their plea either before or after a judge imposes their sentence. Under Ohio Supreme Court precedent, although presentence motions to withdraw a plea are not an “absolute right,” it is equally established that they ought to be “freely and liberally granted.”
When reviewing the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea, Ohio appellate courts typically employ a multifaceted approach. Specifically, Ninth District precedent dictates that a trial court has not abused its discretion by denying a motion to withdraw a plea when a defendant is represented by competent counsel, a hearing is held, and the defendant’s arguments are considered during the hearing. Additional factors may be considered, as well.
Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that when a defendant subsequently discovers evidence that would have affected his decision to plead guilty, an appellate court should consider this a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his plea.
In June 2023, Ms. Laura Shepherd was indicted on one count of domestic violence. Ms. Shepherd had a prior domestic violence conviction, as well, raising the level of potential punishment for this charge. After heeding advice from her lawyer, Ms. Shepherd changed her plea of not guilty to a plea of no contest.
Before sentencing, though, Ms. Shepherd again sought to change her plea. She filed a motion to withdraw it with the trial court, asserting that newly discovered evidence provided a defense if she were to proceed to trial.
Ms. Shepherd asserted that this new evidence provided a new understanding of her situation based on counseling that she was undergoing at the time. Specifically, Ms. Shepherd learned about battered women’s syndrome, and that she may be suffering from it.
At a hearing, the court questioned Ms. Shepherd’s counsel about the matter, and why it should vacate its initial ruling that Ms. Shepherd knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered her no contest plea. In response, defense counsel asserted:
Well, your Honor, I guess I would say in the interest of justice to do that for Ms. Shepherd. She is prepared to go forward with the trial at this point in time. We’re not trying to weasel or negotiate something different. I think she understands more clearly her defenses. I think she’s prepared to enter a self-defense claim. I just – I think based upon her understanding of – for lack of a better word – the battered woman syndrome, the situation surrounding that, I don’t think she had a total understanding of that before.
Ultimately, the trial court found that Ms. Shepherd failed to demonstrate a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawing her plea; her motion was denied. Ms. Shepherd then twice moved to supplement the record with an affidavit, and twice the trial court denied the motion. The court continued to sentence her to complete a thirty-day jail term with credit for five days served, five years of community control, and an Anger Management and Domestic Violence Prevention Program, while maintaining no contact with the victim.
On appeal, Ms. Shepherd raised one assignment of error: The trial court committed prejudicial error that deprived Laura L. Shepherd of a trial and due process of law when the trial court denied her presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals overruled the error, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Ninth District found Ms. Shepherd failed to support her claims of newly discovered evidence with any testimony or other evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so. The appellate court stated, “Apart from her lack of understanding, there was nothing upon which the court could find this information was newly discovered to her.”