The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the guilty plea and subsequent sentence of Corey Bigbee, rejecting his arguments that the plea was not entered knowingly and that the sentencing was unconstitutional. The court’s decision, released on October 2, 2025, upholds the original ruling of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on December 9, 2023, where Bigbee was accused of following a woman into her apartment building, forcing his way into her apartment, and attacking a neighbor. According to court documents, Bigbee was found holding a hammer, broomstick, and screwdriver upon police arrival.
Bigbee was initially indicted on multiple charges, including aggravated burglary, burglary, assault, and menacing. After a mental health evaluation, Bigbee was found competent to stand trial. He subsequently accepted a plea deal on July 31, 2024, pleading guilty to an amended indictment that included burglary (a second-degree felony) and assault (a first-degree misdemeanor). In exchange, the prosecution dropped the other charges.
The trial court sentenced Bigbee to two years in prison, with a possible maximum of three years under the Reagan Tokes Law, for the burglary conviction. He was also sentenced to 30 days in jail for the assault charge, with credit for time served.
Bigbee’s Arguments on Appeal
Bigbee appealed the trial court’s decision, raising three main arguments:
* Invalid Guilty Plea: He argued that his guilty pleas were unconstitutional because they were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. He claimed he professed his innocence, and the trial court didn’t follow the proper procedures for what’s known as an “Alford plea.”
* Ineffective Counsel: Bigbee contended that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea after he allegedly professed his innocence.
* Unconstitutional Sentencing: He argued that Ohio’s Reagan Tokes Law, which allows for indefinite sentencing, is unconstitutional.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The appellate court addressed each of Bigbee’s arguments:
1. Guilty Plea Validity
The court reviewed the circumstances surrounding Bigbee’s guilty plea. It acknowledged that a guilty plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. However, the court found that Bigbee’s statements at the *sentencing* hearing, where he claimed the victim was not the same person he had the altercation with, did not constitute a protest of innocence made *contemporaneously* with his guilty plea.
The court explained that an “Alford plea” applies when a defendant pleads guilty while simultaneously maintaining their innocence. In such cases, the trial court must ensure there is a factual basis for the plea. In Bigbee’s case, the court found that his statements at sentencing were not made at the time he entered his guilty plea. He simply stated that the woman in the courtroom was not the same person he had the altercation with. The court concluded that the trial court had followed the proper procedures under Criminal Rule 11.
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Because the court determined that Bigbee did not profess his innocence at the time of his plea, it found that his trial counsel was not obligated to file a motion to withdraw the plea. Therefore, the court rejected Bigbee’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. Constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law
The court addressed Bigbee’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, which allows for a range of possible prison sentences. The court cited a previous ruling by the same court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the law’s constitutionality. The court stated that Bigbee’s arguments did not present any new issues regarding the law’s validity.
Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting all of Bigbee’s arguments. The court concluded that Bigbee’s guilty plea was valid, his counsel was effective, and the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional.