State v. Dorsey, 2021 Ohio 226

Dorsey was indicted on two counts of felonious assault arising from an alleged June 13, 2018 vehicle strike; she ultimately pled guilty to one count (deadly-weapon) pursuant to a plea agreement that capped total prison exposure at five years and dismissed the other felonious-assault count.
The plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 and the record shows Dorsey was advised the cap was for prison time (not probation) and that sentencing control remained with the judge.
Sentencing was accelerated to June 11, 2019 after Dorsey violated her electronic home detention program; the court imposed five years on the felonious-assault count concurrent with an 18-month term in a separate case.
After sentencing, Dorsey (with new counsel) moved to withdraw her guilty plea asserting innocence, that Facebook messages showed victim bribery, that prior counsel misled her into expecting probation (five years), and that the accelerated sentencing deprived her opportunity to withdraw pre-sentence.
The trial court held multi-day evidentiary hearings, heard testimony from prior counsel, the victim, the EHDP supervisor, Dorsey, and a witness to a phone call; the court found counsel credible, the Facebook messages not authentic, and that Dorsey’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; this court conducted an independent review and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s alleged "open disdain" required reversal	State: any perceived disdain did not affect the court’s considered, lawful analysis	Dorsey: judge’s demeanor showed bias that tainted the ruling	Court: no abuse of discretion; ruling supported by record and legal analysis
Whether sentencing acceleration required treating the post-sentence motion as pre-sentence	State: court permissibly considered the motion under the more lenient presentence standard and applied Fish factors	Dorsey: acceleration deprived her and new counsel of opportunity to withdraw pre-sentence	Court: applied presentence factors, considered timeliness and prejudice, and reasonably denied withdrawal
Whether plea was involuntary due to counsel’s alleged misrepresentation about probation	State: Mulligan was experienced, credible; Crim.R.11 colloquy showed Dorsey understood the plea and penalties	Dorsey: Mulligan told her she would receive five years probation if she pled guilty	Court: found Mulligan credible, plea knowing/voluntary, no legitimate basis to withdraw
Whether evidence (Facebook messages) established innocence or bribery of victim	State: victim denied authorship and denied taking money; messages were fake	Dorsey: messages and alleged offers show victim was bribed to falsely identify Dorsey	Court: messages lacked credibility and did not establish a complete defense

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders requires independent appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is frivolous)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (establishes standards for Crim.R. 32.1 plea-withdrawal analysis and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (lists nine factors used in balancing presentence plea-withdrawal requests)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (articulates core procedural safeguards for plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (abuse-of-discretion standard for plea-withdrawal review)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision)