State v. Harack, 197 Ohio App. 3d 157

Harack was arrested for approaching two girls (ages 11 and 14) and charged with criminal child enticement; he pled no contest to one count and the other was dismissed.
He was sentenced May 24, 2010 to 180 days in jail (13 days suspended) and three years of probation, and classified as a Tier I sex offender requiring registration.
On November 3, 2010, Harack, with new counsel, moved to withdraw his plea under Crim.R. 32.1, claiming manifest injustice due to lack of information about registration.
Before a hearing, the state and Harack reached a new plea: amend the charge to aggravated menacing, with no reporting/registration requirements.
At the December 23, 2010 hearing, the court allowed withdrawal of the original plea, accepted the amended plea to aggravated menacing, and resentenced with the same term minus sex-offender requirements; the dismissed second complaint remained moot.
The State appeals, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to withdraw the plea and implement the new agreement; the trial court’s actions were ultimately affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court have jurisdiction to withdraw the plea and implement the amended agreement?	State contends no jurisdiction post-sentence to withdraw and modify plea.	Harack argues Crim.R. 32.1 permits withdrawal and court may correct manifest injustice.	Yes; the court had jurisdiction to consider the Crim.R. 32.1 motion and implement the amended plea.
Was the motion to withdraw the plea pending when the amended plea was entered?	Motion was not pending after agreement; court erred.	Motion remained pending during hearing, thus allowed to influence proceedings.	Motion remained pending during the hearing and the court acted within its authority.
Did the exchange and entry of the amended plea divest the State of its remaining appellate rights on jurisdictional grounds?	Modification undermines jurisdiction and the state’s ability to appeal.	Agreement and journal entries reflect proper exercise of jurisdiction and authority.	No; once the amended plea was accepted and journalized, the court acted within jurisdiction.

State v. Butts, 112 Ohio App.3d 683 (1996) (plea agreements treated as contracts subject to contract-law standards)
State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325 (2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction to file and hear misdemeanors; appellate review)
State v. Buckwald, 2010-Ohio-3543 (2010) (Crim.R. 32.1 motions and manifest injustice considerations; continued jurisdiction)
State v. Gegia, 2004-Ohio-1441 (2004) (manifest injustice and post-sentence plea withdrawal governing principles)