State v. Griffin, 2023 Ohio 4011

In November 2017 Griffin and a co-defendant allegedly had sexual intercourse with a 17‑year‑old who was unconscious; the acts were captured on interior surveillance video.
Griffin was indicted for rape (R.C. 2907.02) and sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03); the State later reduced the rape count to attempted rape (second‑degree) and dismissed a sexual‑battery count as part of a plea agreement.
On July 15, 2019 Griffin pled guilty to attempted rape; the trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment on September 18, 2019.
Griffin’s first appeal challenged the adequacy of the court’s advisement about Tier III sex‑offender registration; this court affirmed in December 2020.
In September 2022 Griffin filed a post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting ineffective assistance (counsel should have sought plea to sexual battery or attempted sexual battery) and that his plea was not knowing/voluntary; the trial court denied the motion on November 7, 2022.
Griffin appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion based on alleged ineffective assistance, and (2) the court erred by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Griffin's post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel	Res judicata bars the claim because Griffin could have raised it on direct appeal; the record contains no evidence counsel refused or failed to pursue lesser pleas or that other plea offers existed	Counsel was ineffective for advising Griffin to plead to attempted rape instead of lesser offenses (sexual battery/attempted sexual battery), which could have reduced punishment	Affirmed. Res judicata bars the claim; on the merits Griffin failed to show deficient performance or offer evidence that lesser pleas were offered or counsel refused to pursue them; plea found knowing, intelligent, voluntary
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing	No hearing required because Griffin's allegations rely on speculation and the record contains no extrinsic evidence of other plea offers; a hearing is only required if alleged facts, accepted as true, would require vacating the plea	An evidentiary hearing was needed because Griffin relied on facts outside the record to support ineffective assistance	Affirmed. No hearing required: Griffin's allegations, if accepted, did not establish manifest injustice warranting vacatur; the trial court did not abuse its discretion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 (post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 claims barred by res judicata when they could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (res judicata principles apply to ineffective‑assistance claims attached to plea withdrawals)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (defines “manifest injustice” under Crim.R. 32.1)
State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (undue delay in filing Crim.R. 32.1 motion harms movant’s credibility)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (standard for abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52 (equal protection issue when statutes prohibit identical activity but carry different penalties; cited by appellant as support for seeking lesser offense)