State v. Liles, 2019 Ohio 3029

On July 11, 2018, Liles was stopped for a lanes violation, arrested for OVI after field tests, and an inventory search found prescription pills in his car.
Grand jury indicted Liles on felony OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), G(1)(d)) with a specification and on aggravated possession of drugs; he pleaded guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea deal that led the State to dismiss the specification.
After pleading guilty on September 12, 2018, Liles filed a presentence motion to withdraw his pleas claiming he does not drink or use drugs and therefore had a defense.
The trial court held a hearing on November 16, 2018, denied the motion, and on December 11, 2018 sentenced Liles to two years community control (concurrent), 66 days jail (credit for time served), mandatory treatment, and a 3-year license suspension.
On appeal Liles argued the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy was deficient—he says the court failed to fully advise him of all maximum penalties (additional jail/prison ranges, vehicle forfeiture, and mandatory treatment)—so his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
The court considered the Xie factors for presentence plea withdrawal, focused on the adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 advisement and whether Liles showed prejudice or a legitimate basis to withdraw his pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 for felony pleas	State: trial court substantially complied; any inaccuracies did not prejudice Liles	Liles: court failed to advise of all maximum penalties (possible cumulative jail/prison exposure, vehicle forfeiture, and that treatment is mandatory), so plea was not knowing and intelligent	Court: substantial compliance; errors/omissions were not prejudicial and did not render plea invalid
Whether Liles showed a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his plea under Xie factors	State: permitting withdrawal would not prejudice prosecution but other Xie factors weigh against withdrawal	Liles: his post-plea claim of innocence (no drinking/using) justifies withdrawal	Court: only two Xie factors favored Liles (no prejudice to prosecution and timing); remaining factors (competent counsel, full hearings, credibility of innocence claim) weighed against him, so denial was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (framework and factors for evaluating presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (guilty pleas must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for constitutional plea advisements; substantial compliance allowed for nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (under substantial-compliance standard, plea upheld if totality of circumstances show defendant understood consequences)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)