State v. Alexander, 2016 Ohio 5707

In June 2014 Derrice Alexander fired a gun at his girlfriend’s apartment during an argument; the bullet passed through a window and fatally struck their two‑year‑old son.
Alexander was indicted on multiple counts including murder (later reduced), felonious assault, endangering children, domestic violence, having a weapon while under disability, and improperly discharging into a habitation, with firearm and prior‑offense specifications.
Alexander entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts; murder was reduced to involuntary manslaughter and the agreed total prison term range was 15–30 years.
Immediately before sentencing Alexander (through counsel) moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court held a hearing, denied the motion, and imposed the 30‑year maximum sentence under the plea agreement.
On appeal Alexander challenged (1) denial of his presentence motion to withdraw the plea and (2) alleged ineffective assistance of counsel relating to the withdrawal hearing.
The Eighth District affirmed, finding the plea voluntary after a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the withdrawal motion lacked a reasonable and legitimate basis, and counsel did not render constitutionally deficient assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Alexander’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	State: plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered after a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy; defendant failed to show a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw	Alexander: sought to withdraw plea, claiming he did not commit some charges and expressing regret about pleading	Court: No abuse of discretion; plea presumptively valid after Crim.R. 11 colloquy and defendant failed to rebut presumption or articulate specific, legitimate grounds for withdrawal
Whether counsel’s conduct at the withdrawal hearing violated the Sixth Amendment (ineffective assistance)	State: counsel advocated (moved) on client’s behalf, participated in hearing, and disagreement over strategy does not equal abandonment or prejudice	Alexander: claims counsel disagreed with his desire to withdraw and thus effectively abandoned him or conflicted with his interests	Court: No ineffective assistance—counsel moved to withdraw, participated and offered to argue; defendant showed no prejudice because the motion lacked substantive merit

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standard for pre‑sentence plea withdrawal and trial court discretion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice standard under Strickland articulated for Ohio)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1981) (factors for evaluating plea withdrawal motions)
United States v. Navarro‑Flores, 628 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir.) (requirement that a motion to withdraw make a prima facie showing before extensive hearing)
United States v. Dabdoub‑Diaz, 599 F.2d 96 (5th Cir.) (same principle regarding prima facie showing)