Shaker Hts. v. Thompson, 2026-Ohio-1871

In 2003 Thompson pled no contest to domestic violence after striking M.L. and signed a plea form waiving rights and acknowledging the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 1
The municipal court entered judgment the same day, noted counsel was waived in writing, and found Thompson guilty after hearing evidence. 2
In 2019 and 2020, Thompson filed motions to vacate the conviction, claiming the plea was not knowing because he had not been told about future adverse consequences; the 2020 motion was denied and not appealed. 3
In 2025 Thompson filed a renewed Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea, citing lost transcripts, collateral consequences, and equitable considerations, but he filed no affidavits. 4
The trial court denied the renewed motion without opinion, and Thompson timely appealed, raising four assignments of error. 5

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a missing plea transcript rebut regularity and show manifest injustice? 6	Shaker Heights: record is silent because transcript was lawfully destroyed, so regularity is presumed.	Thompson: no transcript means no proof plea complied with Crim.R. 11.	No; Thompson bore the burden and presumption of regularity applied. 7
Must the court consider collateral consequences or explain denial of Crim.R. 32.1 motion? 8	Shaker Heights: collateral consequences need not be advised and no findings are required.	Thompson: court had to address housing, employment, firearm, and sentencing consequences.	No; those consequences did not require plea advisement or a written explanation. 9
Did the court abuse discretion by denying the postsentence motion without a hearing? 10	Shaker Heights: no evidentiary materials showed manifest injustice.	Thompson: factual development was needed because the plea record is missing.	No; no hearing was required and denial without one was proper. 11
Did the court err by failing to reconstruct the record under App.R. 9(E)? 12	Shaker Heights: Thompson caused the loss by waiting decades and never used App.R. 9(C) or 9(D).	Thompson: destroyed record prevented meaningful review and had to be reconstructed.	No; Thompson was at fault and the issue was otherwise moot. 13

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (presentence plea withdrawals are to be freely and liberally granted; hearing standard differs from postsentence motions 14)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice for postsentence withdrawal 15)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1998) (defines manifest injustice as a clear or openly unjust act 16)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (when necessary transcript portions are missing, reviewing court presumes regularity 17)
State v. Raber, 2012-Ohio-5636 (Ohio 2012) (presumption of regularity applies when the record is unavailable 18)
State v. Hunt, 2019-Ohio-1982 (8th Dist. 2019) (lawfully destroyed plea transcript and defendant-caused delay support presumption of regularity 19)
Olmsted Twp. v. Campanalie, 2025-Ohio-5851 (8th Dist. 2025) (absence of evidence of a plea defect leaves the presumption of regularity intact 20)
State v. Said, 2021-Ohio-3360 (8th Dist. 2021) (Crim.R. 32.1 does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law 21)
State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894 (Ohio 2004) (R.C. 2943.031 creates a statutory exception to Crim.R. 32.1 for immigration warnings 22)
State v. Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509 (Ohio 2008) (failure to advise on mandatory postrelease control can invalidate plea because it is part of the maximum penalty 23)