State v. Kennedy, 2013 Ohio 4243

Patrick Kennedy, a family friend and babysitter, was accused after a 9‑year‑old (J.) reported sexual assaults; police detained and later arrested him following hospital interviews.
Detectives read Miranda rights verbatim; Kennedy initialed and signed a written waiver and, after a ~1 hour 15 minute interview, gave verbal admissions and wrote a confession.
Kennedy was indicted on multiple counts for rape of a child and gross sexual imposition; he pleaded no contest to two rape counts and three GSI counts in exchange for dismissal of other counts and an agreed 15 years-to-life aggregate sentence.
After the plea but before sentencing, Kennedy moved to suppress his statements (alleging coercion) and to withdraw his plea (alleging defense counsel pressured him and failed to act in his best interest).
Trial court denied suppression and denied withdrawal of plea after evidentiary hearings; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Miranda waiver valid, statements voluntary, and no abuse of discretion in denying plea withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of confession: Miranda waiver and voluntariness	Kennedy: confession was product of coercive interrogation, promises of leniency, and psychological pressure (flattery of hope)	State: detectives gave Miranda, Kennedy understood and knowingly waived; no threats or improper promises; deception used but not coercive	Waiver valid; confession voluntary under totality of circumstances; suppression denied
Motion to withdraw plea (presentence)	Kennedy: counsel pressured him into pleading; counsel believed him guilty and would not adequately defend him	State: appointed counsel negotiated plea after advising risks; counsel prepared for trial and left the choice to Kennedy; testimony corroborated by deputy	Trial court did not abuse discretion denying withdrawal; plea was voluntary and informed

State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1995) (trial court's factual findings on suppression entitled to deference; appellate review is legal)
State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St.2d 250 (1973) (suppression hearing factfinder role explained)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standard for presentence plea-withdrawal motions and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (1991) (police deception in interrogation does not necessarily violate due process)
State v. Petitjean, 140 Ohio App.3d 517 (2000) (promises or suggestions of leniency can create a "flattery of hope" coercion theory)
State v. Arrington, 14 Ohio App.3d 111 (1984) (promises of leniency may render a confession involuntary)
State v. Lambros, 44 Ohio App.3d 102 (1988) (change of heart alone insufficient to justify withdrawal of plea)
State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 (2000) (factors to consider on presentence plea-withdrawal motions)