State v. Nawman
2017 Ohio 7344
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 30, 2013, Brandon Nawman was indicted for burglary (with firearm specification) and having a weapon while under disability; he pled guilty to having a weapon while under disability in exchange for dismissal of burglary.
- The trial court ordered a PSI and later sentenced Nawman to the maximum 3-year term, to run consecutively to a 4-year sentence from Clinton County (aggregate 7 years).
- Nawman appealed; this court affirmed his conviction and sentence, finding compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) and proper findings for consecutive sentences. (See Nawman I.)
- On May 19, 2016, Nawman filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel — specifically that counsel failed to tell him a 2-year plea offer could be rejected and that the court could impose the maximum sentence. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
- Nawman filed a delayed appeal from that denial; the appellate court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a hearing and whether Nawman showed a reasonable likelihood that plea withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the post-sentence motion to withdraw plea | State: denial proper because movant failed to show facts that, if true, would require withdrawal; motion was unsupported by record and merely self-serving | Nawman: counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that a 2-year plea could be rejected and that he might receive the maximum, rendering plea unknowing and involuntary | No abuse of discretion; hearing not warranted — Nawman failed to show reasonable likelihood withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute manifest injustice justifying post-sentence withdrawal | State: ineffective assistance can be manifest injustice but defendant must meet Strickland and show prejudice (would not have pled) | Nawman: counsel’s deficient advice induced plea | Court: ineffective assistance may constitute manifest injustice but Nawman did not meet Strickland; no prejudice shown |
| Whether a movant is entitled to a hearing when allegations rely on matters outside the record | State: such matters are proper for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21, not Crim.R. 32.1; delay and lack of evidence weigh against a hearing | Nawman: alleged out-of-record advice supports need for hearing | Court: allegations were outside the record, unsupported, and better pursued via post-conviction proceedings; no hearing required |
| Whether delay in filing motion affects credibility and relief | State: long unexplained delay (filed ~15 months after direct appeal) undermines credibility | Nawman: no explanation for delay | Court: delay counseled against relief; supports denial without hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts and applies Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (defines manifest injustice standard for post-sentence plea withdrawal)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (appellate review standard for plea-withdrawal decisions and affirmance absent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (procedure for informing defendant about possible consecutive sentences at plea)