Login | December 05, 2025
Motion to withdraw plea in Mahoning Cty. murder case denied
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: January 30, 2020
A Mahoning County trial court’s denial of a murder defendant’s motion to withdraw was not an abuse of discretion, the 7th District Court of Appeals has ruled.
Earl Charity III and co-defendant Juan Phillips were indicted in July 2018 for the death of Oscar Caywood.
Charity was charged with one count each of aggravated murder, murder and aggravated robbery and 10 counts of having a weapon under disability. He was also indicted on three firearm and three repeat violent offender specifications.
Charity agreed to plead guilty to aggravated murder and its firearm specification. In exchange, the state dismissed all remaining charges and specifications and agreed to recommend a sentence of 23 years to life in prison.
During the Dec. 4, 2018 change of plea hearing, the trial court told Charity, who was on parole for involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault, that pleading guilty to aggravated murder would be a violation of his parole and any punishment the adult parole authority ordered would be served consecutive to the sentence the trial court issued for aggravated murder. The defendant stated that he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and his potential maximum sentence.
Thirty minutes before sentencing, Charity’s attorney was made aware of the defendant’s wish to withdraw the plea, and an oral motion to withdraw was made.
Charity told the judge his plea should be withdrawn because he originally believed his parole violation would result in a nine-month increase of his sentence but later learned that it would result in a 42-month increase of his sentence. He also claimed to have evidence that would support his defense if he went to trial.
His counsel then told the trial court that Charity called Youngstown Detective Michael Lambert the day before the sentencing hearing claiming that someone else had murdered Caywood. Appellant’s counsel was unaware of this phone call prior to the sentencing hearing.
The trial court granted a recess to allow the state and appellant to call Lambert. The detective confirmed he received a call from Charity the day before, but would not speak to the defendant because he was represented by counsel. The defense attorney then told the trial court that Charity had given him “a piece of paper with some information on it that [appellant] believes is the identity of the person that committed the crime.”
The trial court denied a recess of the sentencing hearing to investigate further and concluded there was not a sufficient basis to allow appellant to withdraw his plea. The judge then sentenced appellant to the agreed upon sentence.
On appeal, Charity argued the trial court should have granted the pre-sentence motion to withdraw due to the lack of prejudice to the state and his claim of innocence.
The appellate court looks to nine factors when determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a plea:
(1) whether the state will be prejudiced by withdrawal; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; (5) the extent of the hearing on the motion to withdraw; (6) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (7) whether the timing of the motion was reasonable; (8) the reasons for the motion; and (9) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charge.
Charity argued that he met the first and ninth factors.
“Appellant claimed that he was not the person who murdered Caywood but provided no evidence to support this argument,” 7th District Judge Gene Donofrio said in his opinion.
The state said it would have presented evidence at trial that police responded to a call about gunshots at Charity’s home. When officers arrived, Charity exited the garage covered in Caywood’s blood, wearing some of Caywood’s jewelry, with Caywood’s wallet and identification. The victim’s body was found in the garage.
Police searched the garage and found: a machete, a meat clever, and three guns that were used to shoot Caywood 19 times. Several more guns were found in the trunk of a car that was parked in the garage. The car belonged to Charity’s grandfather and appellant had a key to the car’s trunk in his pocket. The machete and meat clever were used in what appeared to be an attempted dismemberment of Caywood’s body.
According to the co-defendant, Charity started a fight with the victim and began to use the machete or the meat clever on him. In addition, Caywood’s DNA was found on Charity and Phillips, and the appellant tested positive for gunshot residue.
“Based on the above, the state would have been prejudiced had appellant’s plea been withdrawn,” Donofrio added.
Appellate judges Carol Ann Robb and David A. D’Apolito concurred. The case is cited State v. Charity, 2019-Ohio-5252.