State v. Lovano, 2014 Ohio 3418

Lovano, a Canadian citizen lawfully residing in the U.S., pleaded guilty in 1993 to felony theft and two petty offenses.
Nineteen years later, Lovano was convicted of aggravated assault, facing deportation due to multiple crimes involving moral turpitude.
In 2012 Lovano moved to withdraw the 1993 guilty plea under R.C. 2943.031 and Crim.R. 32.1, claiming lack of required deportation advisement at plea.
No plea transcript existed; the notes were destroyed; Lovano’s former attorney could not recall relevant communications.
The State argued the motion was untimely and prejudicial due to loss of evidence and witnesses; Lovano argued lack of advisement warranted withdrawal.
The trial court granted the motion to withdraw without opinion; on appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding the motion timely and notice presumed absent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether absence of the required advisement mandates withdrawal	State contends no record of advisement; Lovano’s motion lacks proof of failure.	Lovano argues the advisement was not given, triggering presumption under R.C. 2943.031(E).	Yes; presumption adverse to Lovano due to absence of record and advisement not proven.
Whether the 19-year delay in filing the motion was an abuse of discretion	State argues untimeliness supports denial due to risk of stale evidence.	Lovano asserts Francis factors require considering timeliness among many factors, not dispositive.	No; the court reversal found the delay unreasonable and prejudicial, supporting denial.

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (timeliness is one factor among many in ruling on withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Huang, 2014-Ohio-1511 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99945) (notice of immigration consequences; timeliness and prejudice considerations)