State v. Conner, 2012 Ohio 3579

In 2009, Conner pled guilty to two counts of attempted murder with five-year firearm specifications and was sentenced to 12 years.
The conviction was affirmed on appeal for substantial Crim.R. 11 compliance regarding postrelease control.
In February 2012, Conner moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; the state opposed and the trial court denied.
Conner, proceeding pro se, argued the court should hold a hearing and that res judicata barred his claims.
Crim.R. 32.1 governs post-sentence motions to withdraw; a hearing is required only if facts alleged would justify withdrawal.
The court held that res judicata barred the claims and that any error was harmless; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of the post-sentence motion to withdraw was an abuse of discretion	Conner argued the court erred by not holding a hearing and by applying res judicata.	The state argued res judicata barred the motion and no hearing was required.	No abuse; res judicata barred the motion.

State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (post-sentence withdrawal claims barred by res judicata)
State v. Waite, 8th Dist. No. 96954 (2012-Ohio-489) (trial court lacks power after appellate affirmance)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Crim.R. 32.1 motions)
State v. Bankston, 8th Dist. No. 92777 (2010-Ohio-4496) (abuse of discretion review for post-sentence motions)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998-Ohio-271) (manifest injustice standard for Crim.R. 32.1)
State v. Barrett, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-375 (2011-Ohio-4986) (hearing required if facts necessitate withdrawal)
State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-1214 (2004-Ohio-6123) (factors for determining necessity of a hearing)