State v. Haney
2013 Ohio 1924
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Haney pled guilty to domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony, in Montgomery County.
- Before sentencing, Haney sought to withdraw his plea after the court indicated a prison term.
- New counsel filed a motion to withdraw; Haney alleged promises of treatment and poor discovery handling.
- A hearing was held; Haney testified about expectations of treatment and later change in sentencing stance.
- The trial court denied the post-sentence withdrawal motion as lacking manifest injustice; sentencing proceeded.
- On appeal, the court independently reviewed Anders issues, corrected a sentencing-notice defect by removing possible community service, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-sentencing withdrawal standard | Haney contends manifest injustice warrants withdrawal. | Haney asserts improper plea execution and promised treatment. | Post-sentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice; no abuse here. |
| Knowingly and voluntarily entered plea | Plea was knowingly and intelligently made under Crim.R. 11. | Defendant did not fully understand rights and consequences. | Crim.R. 11 satisfied; plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. |
| Plea hearing adequacy and counsel | Original counsel failed to ensure understanding. | Counsel provided adequate explanation and discovery. | No arguable merit in ineffective assistance. |
| Community service notice objection | Statutory notice required community service for costs. | Notice not required for prison-sentenced offenders post-HB 247. | Modify sentence to remove potential community service for costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24520 & 24705 (2012)) (knowingly and voluntarily plea; Crim.R. 11(C) guidance)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (Crim.R. 11 compliance; strict for waivers of constitutional rights)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (non-constitutional rights require substantial compliance)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (when Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b) failure, prejudice analysis not implicated)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (prejudice required for non-constitutional plea challenges)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (abuse of discretion standard for post-sentence withdrawal)