State v. Karmasu, 2011 Ohio 3253

Karmasu was indicted in Summit County on multiple counts including extortion, menacing by stalking, identity fraud, and telecommunications harassment, with supplemental indictments issued later.
A competency evaluation by Dr. O’Reilly found Karmasu competent to stand trial; the court so found after reviewing the report.
Karmasu, represented by counsel, filed numerous pro se motions; the court conducted extensive discussions and considered plea negotiations.
After lengthy colloquy, Karmasu elected to proceed with counsel; negotiations led to a plea of guilty to two counts in exchange for dismissal of seven counts and a potential prison term with post-release-control considerations.
At sentencing, Karmasu moved to withdraw his guilty plea claiming the State’s post-release-control promise and innocence, which the trial court denied after a full hearing.
The court ultimately sentenced Karmasu to six and a half years in prison, with fines and a post-release-control term up to three years; the conviction and sentence were appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea	Karmasu argues the court abused discretion by denying withdrawal of his guilty plea.	State contends the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; withdrawal not warranted.	No abuse; three Rosemark factors satisfied; denial affirmed.
Whether Karmasu’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered	Karmasu maintains he did not understand plea consequences and could litigate guilt at sentencing.	State argues plea was informed, with proper advisement and defense counsel present.	Plea valid; totality of circumstances shows knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence withdrawal standard; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306 (1996) (three-prong test for withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92 (1971) (totality-of-the-circumstances for knowing, voluntary plea)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R.11 compliance and knowing plea analysis)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (requirement to understand charges and penalties)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (totality of circumstances in guilty-plea voluntariness)
Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio 400 (1831) (contracts to contract away criminal culpability void)
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Hull, 51 Ohio St. 270 (1894) (illegality of consideration voids contract related to criminal matters)