State v. Aleshire, 2012 Ohio 16

Negotiated guilty plea to multiple sex offense counts; sexual-imposition, rape, and related charges; five-year post-release-control mandate added after sentencing; appellant later challenged the sentence and moved to withdraw his plea; court remanded post-Fischer guidance on post-release-control issues; trial court denied motions and appellant appealed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-release-control portion of the sentence was properly corrected on remand	Aleshire argues Fischer voided the post-release-control portion	Aleshire contends other sentence parts were invalidated	Only post-release-control portion is void and remediable
Whether the re-sentencing complied with RC 2929.19(A) and allowed victim input	State argues proper hearing and victim input occurred	Aleshire claims insufficient opportunity to be heard	Hearing complied; appellant had opportunity to address court
Whether the post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea requires an evidentiary hearing	State contends hearing not required if no manifest injustice	Aleshire seeks withdrawal based on grounds raised previously	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no oral hearing required
Whether the court erred in declining to consider newly discovered evidence and mootness of classifications	State maintains remand preserved issues; classifications moot	Aleshire argues due process failures	Issues resolved consistent with Fisher and mootness rulings
Whether failure to advise right to appeal at re-sentencing caused prejudice	State argues no prejudice given awareness of appeal rights	Aleshire suffered prejudice from lack of advisement	No prejudice; collateral relief denied

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (post-release control must be corrected; only offending portion void)
State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95 (1987) (plea is a complete admission; manifest injustice required for withdrawal)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (abuse of discretion standard for post-sentence withdrawal; manifest injustice)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata applies to issues raised at trial or on direct appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata principles for criminal defendants)
State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (1985) (standard for reviewing withdrawal motions; discretion of trial court)
Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (1999) (failure to advise of appellate rights not collateral relief absent prejudice)