State v. Acosta, 2022 Ohio 3327

In 2014 Jonathan Acosta (then 17) was indicted for aggravated murder, multiple murder and assault counts, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse stemming from the death of Alexavier Gonzalez.
Acosta gave a detailed statement admitting he struck Gonzalez with a baseball bat, stabbed him, wrapped and placed the body in trash bags and a garbage can, and left it in an alley.
Co‑defendant/witness David Rivera initially gave statements to police describing Acosta’s central role and assistance in disposing of the body; police believed Acosta’s calf wound was self‑inflicted.
Acosta pled guilty to aggravated murder and abuse of a corpse, was sentenced to 25 years to life (plus concurrent nine months), and did not appeal.
In 2021 Rivera recanted in an affidavit and at a hearing, claiming his earlier statements were false (he was a minor, on LSD, and allegedly misled/coerced by police); Rivera testified differently about the events.
The trial court granted Acosta’s post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on Rivera’s recantation and found manifest injustice; the State appealed and the appellate court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Acosta)	Held
Whether a post‑sentence guilty plea may be withdrawn based on newly discovered evidence/recantation	A knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea cannot be undone simply by later claims of innocence or newly discovered evidence	Rivera’s recantation is newly discovered evidence showing manifest injustice; without Rivera’s original statement there was no proof of prior calculation/design and Acosta would have gone to trial and claimed self‑defense	Reversed: appellate court held Acosta failed to show manifest injustice because his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and a bare recantation did not overcome that showing
Whether trial court abused discretion by crediting Rivera’s recantation while ignoring evidence undermining his credibility	Trial court improperly relied on recantation and ignored credibility issues (e.g., prior statements, timing, and potential motives)	Trial court found Rivera credible despite prior statements and circumstances of his interrogation	Moot (appellate court sustained first assignment of error and reversed trial court; did not reach this assignment on the merits)

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard articulated)
Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (2021) (definition and review of abuse of discretion)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea post‑sentence)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998) (manifest injustice described as extraordinary and fundamental flaw)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (a defendant who pleads guilty is presumed to have admitted guilt)
State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95 (1987) (counseled guilty plea removes issue of factual guilt)