State v. Acosta, 2016 Ohio 5698

Michael Acosta was indicted for felonious assault and abduction after a March 9, 2015 domestic-violence incident in which the victim reported being struck, choked, and threatened; police observed bruising and blood.
On June 2, 2015 Acosta withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted felonious assault pursuant to a written plea agreement calling for an agreed 18-month sentence; the trial court accepted the plea.
Acosta later moved orally on the day of sentencing (June 30, 2015) to withdraw his plea; new counsel was appointed and the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding any appeal would be frivolous and identified two potential but meritless issues: (1) Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy sufficiency and (2) denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.
The Sixth District reviewed the record, found no reversible error, concluded the plea and plea-hearing complied with Crim.R. 11, upheld denial of the withdrawal motion, affirmed the conviction and granted counsel leave to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11(C)(2) (including notification of maximum sentence and waiver of trial rights)	Acosta argued (via counsel's review) that the court failed to personally inform him of the maximum possible sentence and may have ambiguously explained waiver of the right to a bench trial	State argued plea paperwork and colloquy show Acosta read, signed, and understood the written plea agreement and rights waived; any ambiguity was clarified by the plea agreement	Court held substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11: written plea agreement, counsel’s statements, and the colloquy show Acosta understood the maximum exposure and rights waived; no reversible error.
Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying Acosta's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Acosta claimed trial counsel failed to investigate a witness and other facts that could have undermined the victim’s credibility and produced a meritorious defense	State argued there was no evidence the uninvestigated witness was available or would be exculpatory, counsel was competent, and the negotiated plea materially reduced exposure	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: Acosta produced no evidence to support his claims, counsel appeared competent, plea hearing and motion hearing were adequate, and withdrawal was properly denied.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (appellate counsel must file brief identifying any non-frivolous issues when seeking to withdraw)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (distinguishes literal vs. substantial Crim.R. 11 compliance)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Crim.R. 11 procedures and waiver of constitutional rights)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (totality of circumstances test for nonconstitutional plea information)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (standards for pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (failure to inform of postrelease control can require plea vacation)