State v. Pickering, 2021 Ohio 2579

On April 19, 2019 Pickering drove left of center and struck the victim head‑on; the victim suffered serious physical harm. Police found oxycodone and alprazolam on Pickering.
A Perry County grand jury indicted Pickering on multiple counts including aggravated possession, possession, OVI counts, and aggravated vehicular assault.
After continuances and a change of counsel, Pickering pled guilty two days before his scheduled jury trial to aggravated possession (F5), possession (F5), and vehicular assault (F3); remaining counts were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.
Three days before sentencing, Pickering (through a third attorney) moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; the trial court held a hearing, found Pickering not credible, denied the motion, and sentenced him to an aggregate five‑year prison term.
On appeal Pickering argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying the pre‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his pleas, primarily asserting ineffective assistance by prior counsel and other factual defenses (e.g., handling of blood vials).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pickering’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas	Denial was proper under Crim.R. 32.1; court gave full consideration and did not abuse its discretion	Motion should have been freely granted; Pickering claimed a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion
Whether defense counsel performed deficiently (ineffective assistance)	Counsel’s performance was adequate; no showing of prejudice under Strickland/Bradley	Counsel failed to provide discovery timely, failed to meet or file requested motions, pressured Pickering into pleading	Trial court found Pickering not credible; record did not show deficient performance or prejudice; claim rejected
Adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy	Colloquy was thorough; Pickering acknowledged understanding of charges and penalties	Pickering later claimed misunderstanding or coercion	Plea hearing complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant stated he was satisfied with counsel and understood the plea
Timing, prejudice to the state, and existence of a viable defense	Although no prejudice argued, motion was late (filed three days before sentencing) and no evidence of a complete defense to remaining charges	Raised possible mishandling of blood vials as a defense	Court noted blood‑related issues pertained to dismissed charges; Pickering presented no evidence of a complete defense to the charges he pled to

State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (appellate review of trial court denial of pre‑sentence plea withdrawal is for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard described as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (credibility and weight of movant’s assertions on Crim.R. 32.1 are for the trial court)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre‑sentence motions to withdraw should be freely and liberally granted but are not absolute; requires reasonable and legitimate basis)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (lists non‑exclusive factors for evaluating pre‑sentence plea‑withdrawal motions)
State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (no single Fish factor is conclusive)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland standard for Ohio cases)