State v. Evans, 2021 Ohio 829

Nov. 21, 2019: Victim reported his 1999 Ford F150 stolen; deputies found the truck and Evans admitted taking it.
Evans was indicted for fourth-degree felony theft; charge was amended to attempted theft (fifth-degree felony) as part of a plea agreement.
May 1, 2020: Change-of-plea and sentencing hearing held by video conference; court completed a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted Evans’ guilty plea to attempted theft.
Court advised Evans of maximum penalties (including post-release control); Evans acknowledged understanding the consequences during the colloquy.
Court sentenced Evans to one year for attempted theft (credit for time served) and one additional year for revoked post-release control (total two years). After sentencing Evans protested innocence and asked if anything could be done.
Evans appealed, raising two issues: (1) plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to withdraw the plea post-sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Evans)	Held
Whether Evans’ guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made	Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11; plea colloquy informed Evans of nature and max penalty; no Alford plea required	Plea not voluntary because Evans did not expect to go to prison and protested innocence after sentencing	Affirmed: plea was valid; Crim.R.11 colloquy sufficient; protests arose after sentencing and did not convert plea into an Alford plea
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw the guilty plea after sentencing	Counsel’s failure was reasonable because a post-sentence motion faces the high "manifest injustice" standard and Evans’ post-sentence statements were likely a change of heart	Counsel ineffective for failing to move to withdraw plea when Evans protested innocence after sentence	Affirmed: counsel not ineffective; Evans could not show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; manifest injustice not shown

State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (2008) (describing requirement that pleas be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996) (plea enforcement and related constitutional principles)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (Crim.R. 11 colloquy requirements)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 893 N.E.2d 462 (2008) (trial judge must convey accurate information so defendant understands consequences)
State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 396 N.E.2d 757 (1979) (presumption that proper information given is understood)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (explaining Alford plea where defendant maintains innocence but accepts punishment)
State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332 (1990) (trial court duties when defendant asserts innocence but offers an Alford-type plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea)