Background
Deander Z. Pulliam was indicted in Clark County on charges of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony, and receiving stolen property. He remained jailed after his August 12, 2025 arrest. Trial was initially set for October 15, but the court continued it because discovery concerning the receiving-stolen-property count remained incomplete. It later continued the case to November 24 because the court and defense counsel were engaged in another trial.
On November 24, Pulliam pleaded guilty to failure to comply in exchange for dismissal of the receiving-stolen-property count. At sentencing, he orally moved to withdraw his plea, contending in part that the facts supported only a fourth-degree felony and that the video evidence did not establish the degree of risk required for the third-degree offense. The trial court denied the motion and imposed a 30-month prison sentence, a 10-year license suspension, 142 days of jail-time credit, and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy-trial grounds because such a motion would have been futile. Although Pulliam spent 103 days in jail before pleading guilty, the court found that the October 15-to-November 24 continuances were reasonable and tolled 40 days under Ohio law. That left 63 days chargeable for speedy-trial purposes, below the 90-day limit for a jailed felony defendant.
The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pulliam’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pulliam had competent counsel, received a full plea hearing, understood the charge and potential penalties, and received a hearing and full consideration of his withdrawal request. While he offered specific reasons and the State likely would not have been prejudiced, the court concluded that he had not shown a viable defense or likely innocence and that his request reflected a change of heart.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable continuances for incomplete discovery and conflicting trials tolled Pulliam’s speedy-trial clock.
- Defense counsel is not ineffective for declining to file a meritless speedy-trial dismissal motion.
- A presentence plea-withdrawal motion remains discretionary; a change of heart is not a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that speedy-trial calculations require accounting for statutory tolling periods, even when a defendant remains jailed. It also reinforces that the ordinarily liberal standard for presentence plea withdrawal does not give a defendant an automatic right to undo a knowing, voluntary plea after reassessing the evidence or potential sentence.