State v. Petway, 2017 Ohio 7954

Petway was stopped for suspected OVI in June 2016 and charged with OVI, OVI refusal, and driving under OVI suspension; it was his fourth OVI arrest.
A urine test under bond conditions was positive for cocaine; a suppression hearing was contemplated because dash‑cam evidence was outstanding.
At a bond‑revocation appearance the court outlined a plea resolution (dismissal of the suspension charge, 18 days jail, 55 days GPS house arrest, 12 months probation, one‑year license suspension, vehicle immobilization); the bailiff called it a “gift.”
After a short conference with counsel in court, Petway pleaded guilty and was immediately sentenced; about two weeks later he filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea.
The municipal court denied the motion; on appeal Petway argued ineffective assistance (counsel failed to review dash‑cam, plea taken under duress, inadequate plea discussion). The plea hearing recording failed and the settled record was made via App.R. 9(C).
The majority affirmed denial, concluding Petway failed to show counsel’s alleged deficiencies produced prejudice or rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary; a dissent would have found counsel ineffective for failing to investigate the dash‑cam and thus would have allowed withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Petway)	Held
Whether Petway may withdraw his guilty plea post‑sentence	Motion denies manifest injustice; burden is high for post‑sentence withdrawal	Plea was invalid; ineffective assistance and duress justify withdrawal	Denied: Petway failed to show manifest injustice or prejudice from counsel’s conduct
Whether counsel was ineffective for not obtaining/reviewing dash‑cam video	Failure to get the video did not show how plea was rendered unknowing or involuntary; speculative prejudice	Counsel’s failure to investigate the video undermined informed advice and caused prejudice	Denied: majority finds no demonstrated prejudice; dissent finds failure to investigate was ineffective assistance
Whether plea was entered under duress or undue influence	No plausible foundation showing compulsion; Petway waived pre‑plea challenges unless plea was unknowing	Court and staff pressured defendant; counsel did not sufficiently discuss plea implications	Denied: majority finds no evidence of coercion or that counsel’s conduct made plea involuntary
Whether defense counsel’s motion to withdraw was facially insufficient	Trial court considered the motion on the merits; brevity alone does not show ineffectiveness	Counsel’s motion was brief and lacked detailed facts, evidencing deficient performance	Denied: majority holds motion was heard and not rejected as facially insufficient; no ineffectiveness shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test; performance and prejudice)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (waiver of rights must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (waiver standard for constitutional rights)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (guilty plea breaks chain of prior challenges unless plea was unknowing/involuntary)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (presumption of effective assistance of licensed counsel)
State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (rationale for high standard to withdraw plea post‑sentence)
State v. Biggers, 118 Ohio App.3d 788 (failure to obtain discovery can be ineffective assistance)
State v. A.N.J., 168 Wash.2d 91 (counsel must evaluate state’s evidence to advise plea; failure to investigate may render plea unknowing)