State v. Manyo, 2023 Ohio 267

Defendant John A. Manyo pled guilty by way of an Alford plea to third-degree felony abduction and fourth-degree felony domestic violence; kidnapping and felonious assault counts were dismissed.
Factual basis: in December 2018 Manyo allegedly threatened the victim with a knife, struck her with a clock, and held her and their young children for several hours; the victim later reported the incident to police but did not want prosecution to proceed.
Plea agreement and written plea warned that the court was not bound by any sentence recommendation; State and defense jointly recommended community control (including treatment/CCS/NEOCAP).
At the plea hearing the court incorrectly advised Manyo that postrelease control was discretionary for up to two years; before sentencing the court corrected this, amended the written plea to reflect mandatory postrelease control (1–3 years), and proceeded without objection.
At sentencing the court rejected the joint recommendation, found prison appropriate because community control would demean the conduct and not protect the public, and imposed concurrent prison terms (24 months for abduction; 16 months for domestic violence).
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw; the appeal challenged the imposition of prison rather than community control and also raised plea-validity questions; the appellate court affirmed and allowed counsel to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Manyo)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing prison instead of community control	Court may exercise discretion to reject joint recommendation; sentence within statutory range; prison warranted by seriousness/recidivism	Joint recommendation for community control should have been followed	Court affirmed: sentencing within discretion and not contrary to law; court may reject plea recommendations
Whether the plea was invalid because the court misadvised about postrelease control at colloquy	Misstatement was corrected before sentencing; defendant was not prejudiced on the face of the record	Misinformation about mandatory postrelease control rendered plea unknowing/invalid	Court found no arguable merit to challenge: prejudice not shown; correction and amended plea undermined claim
Whether the Alford plea was valid	Alford plea allowed when defendant rationally concludes plea is in best interest despite professed innocence	Alford plea insufficient if defendant not making rational calculation	Court found Alford requirements satisfied: Manyo rationally pleaded to avoid trial risk
Whether counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders and whether appeal is frivolous	Counsel conducted review and submitted Anders brief; record shows no arguable issues	Defendant pro se raised no additional arguable issues	Court agreed appeal was wholly frivolous and granted withdrawal

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permits guilty plea while maintaining factual innocence under certain conditions)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appellate counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215 (2019) (trial court discretion to impose prison or community control for certain felonies)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (interpretation of R.C. 2953.08 and meaning of "contrary to law")
State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 (2022) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not state specific findings)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (complete failure to advise on mandatory postrelease control invalidates plea without showing prejudice)
State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (prejudice test for Rule 11 violations and requirement that prejudice be shown on the face of the record)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (trial courts may reject plea agreements and are not bound by jointly recommended sentences)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 requirements to ensure pleas are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58 (2005) (warning defendant of the possibility of a sentence greater than the prosecutor’s recommendation satisfies due process in plea context)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (test for whether a defendant was prejudiced by a Rule 11 error)