State v. Pierce, 2019 Ohio 3762

Pierce was indicted for receiving stolen property (felony 4) and on May 31, 2018 pleaded guilty to amended Count 1: attempted receiving stolen property (felony 5) under a plea agreement that included possible restitution.
On June 13, 2018 Pierce filed pro se motions to withdraw her plea and to change counsel while she remained represented by appointed counsel; the trial court did not rule on those motions before sentencing.
At sentencing (Aug. 8, 2018) the court imposed 12 months at the Ohio Reformatory for Women and ordered $6,905 restitution; Pierce appealed.
Pierce’s appellate assignments contested (1) denial of her motion to withdraw her plea and plea voluntariness (mental-illness claim), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) failure to include R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors (treated as moot), and (4) insufficiency of evidence for restitution.
The appellate court affirmed: it refused to consider the pro se withdrawal motion because hybrid representation is prohibited, found Crim.R. 11 compliance and the plea voluntary, rejected ineffective-assistance claims as nonprejudicial under Strickland, and upheld the restitution order as supported by victims’ recommendations and receipts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/withdrawal of plea	Plea was valid; court complied with Crim.R.11 and could reject pro se motion filed while defendant had counsel.	Sought to withdraw plea claiming plea was unintelligent/involuntary due to mental illness and inability to remember/understand the hearing.	Denied; plea knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered; pro se motion not considered because hybrid representation is prohibited.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s performance was not deficient or prejudicial; defendant was indigent as declared by court.	Counsel failed to move to withdraw plea, pressured her to plead, belittled her, withheld police report, and failed to file indigency motion.	Overruled; defendant failed to show prejudice under Strickland, so claim fails.
Sentencing findings re R.C. 2929.12	State moved to suggest mootness on appeal.	Argued trial court omitted R.C. 2929.12 factors supported by record (assignment raised on appeal).	Not addressed on merits — court granted suggestion of mootness and did not decide the issue.
Restitution sufficiency	Restitution ($6,905) based on victims’ recommendations and receipts; court may rely on those sources under R.C. 2929.18.	Contended only $4,000 (initially reported saw and drill) should be the restitution cap.	Affirmed; no plain error and amount supported by competent, credible evidence (victims’ receipts/recommendations).

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be liberally granted and require a hearing to determine reasonable and legitimate basis).
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R.11 purpose: ensure defendant makes voluntary, intelligent decision to plead guilty).
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c) for waiver of constitutional rights).
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 requirements reviewed for substantial compliance under totality of circumstances).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice).
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error doctrine reserved for exceptional circumstances to avoid manifest miscarriage of justice).