State v. Hall, 2012 Ohio 2539

Hall was charged in June 2010 with telephone harassment, a first-degree misdemeanor, for calls to a contractor at his home.
He repeatedly moved for continuances, citing back treatment and later a car accident with prescriptions.
On February 9, 2011, Hall pleaded guilty to menacing, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, and was sentenced to 30 days (suspended) with two years of unsupervised community control, no contact with the complainant, and a 500-foot restriction for two years, plus a $150 fine and costs.
Approximately three weeks later Hall, with new counsel, moved to withdraw the guilty plea claiming impairment from prescribed pain medication at the time of the plea.
A hearing was held on April 26, 2011; the court orally and in writing denied the motion, stating no manifest injustice and noting no evidence of impairment.
Hall appeals, challenging (1) the pre-/post-sentence withdrawal standard and the adequacy of the hearing, (2) the denial of withdrawal as manifest injustice, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea requires manifest injustice standard	Hall argues the court erred by denying withdrawal under Crim.R. 32.1 due to manifest injustice.	State contends the court applied appropriate standards and no manifest injustice existed.	No reversible error; standard and hearing were adequate; no manifest injustice shown.
Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered	Hall claims he was impaired by pain meds when he pleaded and thus plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary.	State contends Crim.R. 11 compliance was adequate and Hall demonstrated understanding.	Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; no manifest injustice.
Ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing	Hall asserts counsel failed to present witnesses or medical records to show impairment.	State argues failure to present evidence did not create reasonable probability of different outcome.	No ineffective assistance; record shows no likelihood of different result.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence withdrawal standard liberal, but not absolute right)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (pre-sentence withdrawal factors for abuse of discretion)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post-sentence withdrawal is extraordinary)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (Crim.R. 11 hearing requirements and substantial compliance)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007) (Crim.R. 11; plea-acceptance standards for different offense classifications)