State v. Guy, 2017 Ohio 7006

In 1997 Tony Guy pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)); he was sentenced to 30 days (25 suspended) and completed the sentence.
In May 2016, nearly 19 years later, Guy moved to withdraw his guilty plea and set aside the conviction, arguing his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court failed to inform him he would be permanently barred from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Guy attested he is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and would not have pled guilty if he had known about the firearm disability; the prosecution stipulated to his affidavit.
The 1997 plea hearing transcript was unavailable/destroyed; the trial court denied the motion, finding Guy failed to show manifest injustice and noting the long delay and presumption of regularity.
The appellate court reviewed only whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding no manifest injustice and affirmed the denial; it also noted Guy’s existing felony-based firearm disability was unresolved, so vacating the plea would not necessarily restore firearm rights.

Issue	Guy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether post-sentence plea withdrawal is warranted because Guy was not informed of § 922(g)(9) firearm ban	Guy: He was not told of the federal firearm ban and would not have pled if informed	State: 19-year delay, missing plea transcript, presumption of regularity; Guy also has an existing felony firearm disability	Denied — no manifest injustice; trial court did not abuse discretion

State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (defendant post-sentence bears burden to show manifest injustice; trial court has discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of regularity of trial court proceedings)
State v. Nathan, 99 Ohio App.3d 722 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (appellate review limited to abuse of discretion for plea-withdrawal denials)