State v. Hrnjak, 2013 Ohio 5726

Hrnjak, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to attempted burglary as part of a plea deal; other charges were dismissed.
The trial court advised that conviction would likely lead to deportation, and Hrnjak acknowledged understanding but stated his deportation risk was “very unlikely.”
Two years later, Hrnjak moved under Criminal Rule 32.1 for post-conviction relief and to withdraw his plea, seeking a hearing, relying on Padilla v. Kentucky.
The trial court denied the motion without a hearing; Hrnjak appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and manifest injustice.
The appellate court limited review to the withdrawal-with-plea issue and affirmed the denial, holding no manifest injustice occurred.
There is a separate concurring judgment addressing Padilla’s applicability to Ohio law and the scope of deportation risk under state statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying withdrawal of plea	Hrnjak—asserts manifest injustice due to ineffective counsel	State—argues record shows no manifest injustice and plea was knowingly entered	No abuse of discretion; no manifest injustice established
Whether Hrnjak was entitled to a hearing on the motion to withdraw plea	Hrnjak seeks an evidentiary hearing	Record shows sufficient basis to resolve without a hearing	Hearing not required; record supports denial

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court 2010) (duty to inform noncitizen defendants of deportation risk based on plea)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (Supreme Court 2013) (categorical approach to determining aggravated felonies for deportation)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Supreme Court 2013) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence withdrawal)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)