State v. Nardiello, 104 N.E.3d 858

In 2011 Shane A. Nardiello (a U.K. citizen legally residing in U.S.) was charged with one count of possessing anabolic steroids (first-degree misdemeanor) after a traffic stop; he pleaded no contest on July 28, 2011 and was convicted and sentenced.
Nearly six years later (March 20, 2017) Nardiello moved to withdraw his no-contest plea, asserting the trial court failed to give the R.C. 2943.031(A) non‑citizen advisement before accepting the plea.
Nardiello submitted an affidavit claiming immigration attorneys told him the conviction would prevent him from obtaining a green card or citizenship, and he would not have pleaded no contest if he had known that.
The trial court denied the motion after two hearings, relying on the motion’s untimeliness and Nardiello’s failure to show actual immigration prejudice.
On appeal, the Third District reviewed whether the record shows the statutorily required advisement was given and whether Nardiello met the statutory requirements for mandatory withdrawal under R.C. 2943.031(D).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Nardiello)	Held
Whether the trial court gave the R.C. 2943.031(A) non‑citizen advisement before accepting the plea	The court had a practice of giving the advisement at arraignment and likely did so; counsel had discussed immigration implications with defendant	The record does not show the advisement was given at arraignment or at the plea hearing; absence of record creates presumption it was not given	The record lacks the advisement; under R.C. 2943.031(E) presumption applies that the advisement was not given
Whether Nardiello is entitled to mandatory withdrawal of his plea under R.C. 2943.031(D)	Even if the advisement was not on the record, Nardiello failed to show the conviction may result in deportation/exclusion/denial of naturalization and his motion was untimely, so court may deny relief in its discretion	Nardiello argued his affidavit (statement from immigration attorneys) shows the conviction may have immigration consequences and he would not have pleaded otherwise	The court held the single self‑serving affidavit was insufficient to invoke mandatory withdrawal; his awareness at plea hearing and six‑year delay supported denial—no abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed

Kentucky v. Padilla, 559 U.S. 356 (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen clients about deportation consequences of a plea)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (court may consider timeliness and prejudice when evaluating post‑plea withdrawal motions)
State ex rel. White v. Suster, 101 Ohio St.3d 212 (motion to set aside judgment and appeal are exclusive remedies for R.C. 2943.031 violations)