State v. Lauharn, 2012 Ohio 1572

Lauharn pled no contest to multiple counts including six rapes and several pandering obscenity matters; pre-1996 charges were governed by pre-Senate Bill 2 sentencing statutes.
State dismissed seven charges in exchange for the pleas; aggregate sentence imposed was 40 years.
Lauharn challenged one pre-1996 rape sentence on direct appeal and filed a pro se motion to withdraw pleas while appeal was pending.
Trial court denied the motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration; court relied on plea-hearing transcript and Lauharn’s understanding of potential consecutive sentences.
Appellate court later remanded in a separate case for correction of an indeterminate sentence; in this case, the court concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address motions while an appeal was pending.
Supreme Court authority discussed establishes that appellate pending status divests trial court of jurisdiction over certain motions, with limited concurrent jurisdiction for post-conviction relief proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on Lauharn's plea-withdrawal motions during direct appeal	Lauharn argues trial court had jurisdiction to address the motions while appeal was pending.	Lauharn's position emphasizes lack of jurisdiction due to pending appeal prior decisions.	Trial court lacked jurisdiction; motions are nullities while appeal pending.
Whether the denial of the plea-withdrawal motions produced a final, appealable order	The denial directly affected the judgment on appeal and should be reviewable.	The denial is void as the court lacked jurisdiction to decide during appeal.	The rulings are nullities; no final appealable order at issue.
Whether post-conviction relief petitions may proceed concurrently with a direct appeal	Post-conviction petitions can proceed even if an appeal is pending under R.C. 2953.21.	Concurrent processing may be limited by appellate jurisdiction, depending on the issue.	Concurrent processing allowed for post-conviction relief, but not to sustain rulings on plea-withdrawal during pending appeal.

State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (establishes that appeals divest trial courts of jurisdiction over collateral issues)
State v. Champion, 2008-Ohio-3611 (2008) (trial court erred in denying plea withdrawal while conviction under review)
State v. Wilson, 2010-Ohio-109 (2010) (reinforces lack of jurisdiction to decide withdrawal motions during direct appeal)
State v. Leach, 2005-Ohio-1870 (2005) (discussion of concurrent issue handling during appeal)
State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (clarifies post-trial motions relative to pending appeal and limits to no change in law of case)