State v. Lopez, 2014 Ohio 5089

Miguel Lopez was indicted (Dec. 2003) on four counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications alleging he fired into a crowd. Trial was set for Sept. 20, 2005.
On the morning of trial Lopez, after a ~2.5 hour meeting with counsel and an interpreter, entered a no-contest plea; the court ordered a presentence investigation and continued sentencing.
Before sentencing Lopez sent a pro se letter asserting newly discovered ballistics evidence and asked to withdraw his plea; the court treated the letter as a motion to withdraw and held a hearing where Lopez spoke pro se and counsel remained silent.
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw and immediately imposed a 17-year prison sentence.
Lopez’s direct appeal was initially dismissed for failure to file a brief; later he sought reopening under App.R. 26(B) after federal habeas found his appellate counsel ineffective for failing to file transcripts. This Court reopened the appeal limited to two assignments of error: (1) denial of the presentence plea-withdrawal motion, and (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to argue the pro se motion.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (no supporting new ballistics evidence in the record; Lopez had ample discovery and counsel), and Lopez could not show Strickland prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to argue the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Lopez’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his no-contest plea	Lopez: he discovered ballistics evidence showing bullets did not come from his gun and thus had a reasonable, legitimate basis to withdraw his plea	State: discovery and lab reports were disclosed before plea; no new ballistics report in the record; theory always included multiple guns and Lopez had GSR and eyewitness evidence	Court: No abuse of discretion — no record evidence of the asserted exculpatory ballistics report; Lopez had opportunity for discovery and hearings; plea colloquy was proper
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing Lopez’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea	Lopez: counsel’s failure to argue the motion prejudiced him and likely changed the outcome	State: even if counsel erred, the record contains no evidence that arguing would have altered the result	Court: No Strickland prejudice — assuming deficiency, Lopez cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence plea-withdrawal motions should be freely and liberally granted but are within trial court discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland framework)
State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306 (9th Dist. 1996) (factors supporting denial of plea withdrawal when competent counsel, full plea hearing, and a hearing on withdrawal were present)
State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (discussing appellate-review procedures that inform App.R. 26(B) practice)