State v. Oliphant, 2017 Ohio 7534

Appellant Jasin Oliphant was indicted for two counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications, arson, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon while under disability arising from a shooting, vehicle vandalism/arson, and a high-speed chase.
Oliphant entered an Alford guilty plea; the written plea and plea hearing reflected the parties’ agreement and that the potential maximum prison term was 13.5 years (9 years + 54 months), with one year mandatory on a firearm specification.
The trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy; Oliphant acknowledged understanding rights, consequences, and that no one promised a specific sentence.
At sentencing the court imposed 12 years incarceration with consecutive terms; Oliphant later moved pro se (about 10 months after sentencing) to withdraw his plea, alleging counsel misled him to expect a sentence not exceeding six years.
Trial counsel testified at the withdrawal hearing that he made no promises about the specific sentence and only advised acceptance of the plea as the best option; the trial court denied the motion to withdraw. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and the state agreed no meritorious issues existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for promising a sub‑six‑year sentence	Oliphant: counsel told him and family he would not get more than 6 years, rendering plea unknowing	State/record: counsel at most estimated; no promise; plea form and colloquy warned of 13.5 years max	No ineffective assistance—record shows counsel did discovery, advised plea to avoid far greater exposure, and made no binding promises
Whether the post‑sentence plea withdrawal motion established manifest injustice	Oliphant: plea involuntary due to counsel’s alleged false promise about sentence	State: written plea, signed agreement, and plea/sentencing colloquies show knowledge and voluntariness	Denied—trial court did not abuse discretion; appellant failed to show manifest injustice
Whether appeal is frivolous under Anders	Oliphant: pro se brief reasserts involuntariness claim	Appellate counsel: after review, no non‑frivolous issues	Court finds appeal wholly frivolous and grants counsel’s request to withdraw

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (describing entry of a guilty plea while maintaining innocence)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on ground appeal is frivolous)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)