State v. Batstra
2017 Ohio 2665
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2004 Richard T. Batstra was charged with first‑degree misdemeanor domestic violence; he initially pleaded not guilty.
- On July 23, 2004 Batstra pleaded guilty and was placed on 24 months community control under specified conditions; sentence entry warned of sanctions (fine and jail) for violations.
- On October 13, 2004 Batstra entered a no contest plea on a show‑cause matter and was found guilty.
- Twelve years later, on July 29, 2016, Batstra moved post‑sentence to withdraw his no contest plea, claiming he did not understand the plea/defer process and had substantially rehabilitated his life.
- The trial court granted the motion on August 29, 2016; the State appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because Batstra failed to show a "manifest injustice."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post‑sentence plea withdrawal under Crim.R. 32.1 is warranted after 12 years | The State: withdrawal requires showing a manifest injustice; Batstra failed to meet that burden and delay militates against withdrawal | Batstra: his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and he has been substantially rehabilitated, justifying withdrawal | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion; Batstra did not demonstrate manifest injustice and lengthy delay weighed against withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (establishes burden to show "manifest injustice" for post‑sentence plea withdrawal)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kriener, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998) (defines "manifest injustice" as clear or openly unjust act)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (presumption of regularity when transcript of plea hearing is absent)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985) (appellate review of Crim.R. 32.1 decisions is for abuse of discretion)