State v. Martre, 2019 Ohio 2072

Defendant Derrick Martre was indicted on multiple counts involving sexual offenses against a minor, including gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material.
On the morning of trial, Martre entered negotiated no-contest pleas to all counts; the State dismissed a separate indictment and made no specific sentencing recommendation.
After the plea and before sentencing, Martre sought to withdraw his plea based on new information from a former girlfriend (alleging lies/blackmail) and alleged discovery defects concerning a Toledo search warrant for his cellphone.
The trial court held a hearing, denied the presentence motion to withdraw the plea, and later sentenced Martre to an aggregate 12-year prison term and classified him as a sex offender.
On appeal, Martre raised (1) error in denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw his no-contest plea and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to review the search-warrant materials and investigate suppression issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martre)	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea	Trial court properly balanced Xie factors and denial was not an abuse; withdrawal would prejudice prosecution and evidence showed voluntary, knowing plea	Martre claimed newly discovered ex-girlfriend evidence and discovery defect (search warrant missing) justify withdrawal	Denial affirmed: court found no reasonable, legitimate basis to withdraw; factors weighed for State
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to read/search-warrant and investigate suppression	State argued failure to file suppression not per se ineffective; no showing suppression would likely succeed or that Martre would have gone to trial	Martre argued counsel’s failure to see/read warrant was deficient and that suppression would be a complete defense, so he would have insisted on trial	Ineffective-assistance claim denied: court found counsel’s performance deficient but Martre failed to prove prejudice (no reasonable probability plea would be foregone)

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (trial court may grant pre-sentence plea withdrawal for reasonable, legitimate basis)
State v. Spivey, 81 Ohio St.3d 405 (defendant has no absolute right to withdraw plea; trial court discretion with hearing)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (appellate review of pre-sentence withdrawal denial is abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (factors for weighing pre-sentence plea withdrawal)
State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (no single factor determinative in withdrawal analysis)
State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 (prejudice to prosecution is key factor)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective; need prejudice showing)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio treatment of counsel performance and suppression issues)