Oftentimes, NLPA is contacted by counsel who represent defendants wishing to
withdraw their pleas of guilty because they face a significantly longer sentence
than was promised. The case of People v. Baker, (CR-01-584, 01-540,
02-542 Paulding County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio) demonstrates how NLPA can
assist counsel in the preparation of motions to withdraw a guilty plea and to
reinstate a client’s right to go to trial. Mr. Baker entered a plea of guilty
when he was assured by his counsel that he would receive a sentence that would
only be 59 months, with the option of enrolling for a judicial release program
after six months of incarceration. However, counsel misled Mr. Baker, and the
result was that he was sentenced to eleven years in prison, with no opportunity
for judicial release. Mr. Baker continuously maintained his innocence but agreed
to plead guilty out of fear of receiving the harsh sentence that he actually
received. However, after sentencing, Mr. Baker discovered that, in fact, he was
punished as if he had been convicted at trial. Mr. Baker then successfully asked
the trial court judge to permit him to withdraw his plea. Mr. Baker's argument
was based upon the fact that his plea was entered unknowingly, as he was coerced
into pleading guilty based upon a promise of a lenient sentence. Mr. Baker then
contacted NLPA and retained Jeffrey M. Brandt, Esq. as his new counsel in a
continuing effort to withdraw his guilty plea.

Mr. Brandt determined that the appropriate action was a motion to withdraw
Mr. Baker’s guilty plea under Ohio Criminal Rule 32.1, and directed NLPA to
assist in preparing research for that motion. The Government argued that it had
not made an offer of sentencing leniency to Mr. Baker and that any claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Mr. Baker were merely a convenient
ruse in order to withdraw his plea. Mr. Brandt and NLPA presented arguments to
the contrary, noting that many of Mr. Baker's family members had been told by
Mr. Baker's counsel of the availability of sentencing leniency and that it was
rather inconvenient for Mr. Baker to be wasting away in jail based upon an
unconstitutional plea. The trial court agreed with the arguments presented by
NLPA and Mr. Brandt and ordered Mr. Baker’s plea withdrawn and his right to
proceed to trial reinstated.

Should you find yourself in a similar situation, NLPA stands ready to assist
counsel in the research and preparation of any motions necessary to assist you
in the vigorous defense of your client.