State v. Chavers, 2011 Ohio 3248

Chavers was a passenger during a traffic stop in Wooster, Ohio on Sept. 19, 2008, where a drug dog alerted to narcotics and a yellow pill was found on his person.
Chavers was charged on Sept. 23, 2008 with possession of drugs (diazepam) in Wayne Municipal Court and pled no contest on Jan. 5, 2009; sentencing was contemplated after a presentence study.
Chavers filed four pro se motions on Jan. 16, 2009, including a motion to withdraw his plea, a Marsden motion, a motion to dismiss, and a change of venue; a suppression motion was filed Feb. 3, 2009.
The trial court conducted a plea hearing Jan. 5, 2009 and entered a guilty finding; defense counsel and the defendant questioned the factual basis of the State’s assertion of the pill’s location.
A later sentencing entry on Feb. 10, 2009 failed to specify the exact terms of house arrest and community control, prompting an appeal that was eventually reinstated after corrected entries in 2010.
On appeal, the court ultimately overruled the fourth assignment of error (motion to withdraw plea) and found the remaining assignments moot, affirming the Wayne County Municipal Court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was defense counsel properly dismissed by the court?	Chavers contends trial court erred in denying dismissal of defense counsel.	State argues no error in denial and continuity of representation.	No reversible error; denial affirmed.
Did prosecutorial misconduct occur?	Chavers alleges prosecutorial misconduct in presenting the State’s case.	State contends conduct was proper and within bounds.	Not dispositive; issues moot after fourth assignment.
Was there ineffective assistance of counsel before and during trial?	Chavers asserts defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the State’s facts.	State asserts counsel acted competently and plea was knowingly entered.	Not dispositive; issues moot after fourth assignment.
Did the court properly handle the motion to withdraw plea before sentencing?	Chavers claims the plea withdrawal was improperly denied given allegedly unlawful arrest and incomplete evidence.	State argues plea withdrawal was properly denied under Crim.R. 32.1 and case law.	Denied; fourth assignment overruled.
Did the court provide a full hearing on the two motions (suppress/dismiss)?	Chavers argues he was not given a full hearing on his motions.	State maintains hearing adequacy under Crim.R. 11 and procedural rules.	Moot; other issues resolved in favor of the State.

State v. West, 9th Dist. No. 04CA008554, 2005-Ohio-990 (9th Dist. 2005) (pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea requires three factors; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Pamer, 9th Dist. No. 04CA0027-M, 2004-Ohio-7190 (9th Dist. 2004) (three-prong test for withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 1992-Ohio-142 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (no-contest plea waives certain defenses; factual challenge limited)
State v. Murphy, 116 Ohio App.3d 41, 1996 (Ohio App. 1996) (no-contest plea and admission of facts; waiver of additional factual allegations)
State v. Gilbo, 96 Ohio App.3d 332, 1994 (Ohio App. 1994) (no-contest plea and factual challenge limits)
State v. Wheeland, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0034-M, 2007-Ohio-1213 (9th Dist. 2007) (factors relevant to governing withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Lewis, 3d Dist. No. 1-02-10, 2002-Ohio-3950 (3d Dist. 2002) (consideration of reasons for withdrawal and understanding of charges)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 1983 (Ohio Supreme Court 1983) (abuse of discretion definition and standards)