YOUNGSTOWN — It did not help Whittington Davis’ chances Tuesday of getting his April guilty plea to felonious assault rescinded that a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling was issued several days ago that supported Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Anthony D’Apolito’s Oct. 24 decision to deny a different defendant the opportunity to rescind his guilty plea.

The judge mentioned the new ruling during Davis’ hearing Tuesday, which was to hear oral arguments from Davis’ attorney and the prosecutor’s office on Davis’ request to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. When the hearing was over, D’Apolito said he would announce his decision later.

The charge relates to allegations that Davis, 36, of Warren, approached a woman and two men on West Federal Street downtown and tried to assault one of the men. She said she told Davis to leave, but Davis pushed her hand and she fell backward, injuring her wrist, which required a metal plate and eight pins to reconstruct.

D’Apolito read from the 7th District ruling, which stated that the victims in the other case “expressed their need for closure, and the court was aware that they did not want to be in the same room as him since they were terrified of him.”

D’Apolito said the ruling states that the “wishes of the victim is not a listed criteria” in the case law, but a judge “can identify and rely on other relevant factors.”

D’Apolito said he agrees that the impact on the victim is “very important because I don’t like victims being again on a bobbing string — that their case is decided, the case is pleaded, the case is not” completed.

Davis’ attorney, Nick Brevetta, responded by saying, “The Constitution does not consider the fairness to the victim. They’re just another witness.” Brevetta added that it has not been established that the victim in the Davis case is similarly frightened of the defendant.

Earlier in the hearing, Mahoning County Assistant Prosecutor Katherine Jones said that when she spoke with the victim in preparation for the victim’s testimony if Davis’ case had gone to trial, the woman “indicated a significant amount of mental duress, as well as physical duress that she went through.”

Jones said the victim “has not been back to the court or in contact with (prosecutors) since the plea hearing, when she indicated she was in agreement with the resolution at the plea hearing.”

Jones said the defense apparently wants to try the case under the theory that Davis is claiming self-defense, but she does not think that would be “applicable. My understanding is one of the factors for self-defense is that the defendant is not at fault in causing the affray,” she said. “There is video evidence that would be presented at trial that the defendant is the one who approaches the victim while she was assisting a third party and causes the affray, so I don’t think self-defense would be an applicable defense regardless.”

Brevetta said the video of the confrontation “is open to interpretation. There is no audio, so a lot of it will depend on the testimony of the witnesses as to what was being said.”