State v. Miller, 2020 Ohio 5377

Oct. 22, 2018 controlled buy: confidential informant bought a methamphetamine-containing compound in a vehicle where Marcus Miller was present; Campbell was the seller.
June 25, 2019 indictment: Miller charged with aggravated trafficking (third-degree felony); he initially pleaded not guilty.
Jan. 6, 2020: Miller withdrew not-guilty plea and pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated trafficking (fourth-degree felony) after a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy; court accepted plea and released him on bond.
After release Miller told a bond officer he intended to withdraw his plea; at the Feb. 13, 2020 sentencing hearing he made an oral motion to withdraw, citing an uncooperative confidential informant and other evidentiary issues (and claimed he pled only to get released on bond).
Trial court applied the Xie/Lane factors, found the motion untimely and without reasonable and legitimate basis (issues with the CI were known before the plea), denied withdrawal, and sentenced Miller.
On appeal Miller argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the CI and failing to request time to file a written motion. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Miller)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Miller's pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	The plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary after an extensive Crim.R. 11 colloquy; withdrawal was untimely and the CI problems were known at plea so no reasonable basis to withdraw	Miller sought withdrawal because the confidential informant was uncooperative and new facts might undermine the State's case; he alleged he pled only to obtain bond	Denied. Trial court did not abuse its discretion after weighing Xie/Lane factors (timing unreasonable; reasons known before plea)
Whether Miller received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the CI and failing to seek time to file a written motion to withdraw	Counsel was competent; CI problems were known and had already influenced plea negotiations; no deficient performance or prejudice shown	Counsel failed to investigate potential exculpatory CI information and failed to timely file a motion to withdraw, which prejudiced Miller's decision to plead	Denied. Counsel's performance was not shown to be objectively deficient and Miller failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled but for any alleged deficiency

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence motions to withdraw plea should be freely allowed but defendant has no absolute right; trial court must evaluate factors and hold a hearing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (counsel has duty to investigate; reasonableness of investigation judged with deference to counsel)
State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (2001) (enumeration of factors courts weigh on pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Sullivan, 102 N.E.3d 86 (Ohio appellate decision) (abuse of discretion defined as arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious)