State v. Pippert, 62 N.E.3d 918

Doris J. Pippert (77) backed her car out of a handicapped parking space in a grocery lot and struck John McBride (80), who later died from blunt head trauma; surveillance showed smooth backing and the victim attempting to avoid the vehicle.
Pippert told police her foot slipped from the brake to the accelerator; she had no prior criminal or traffic record.
She pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter (misdemeanor 2nd degree) and failure to maintain reasonable control (minor misdemeanor).
The trial court imposed a suspended 30-day jail term, maximum $750 fine on manslaughter, $150 fine for loss of control, and a two-year license suspension without driving privileges; the original entry also (improperly) required Pippert to re-test to reinstate her license.
Pippert moved to vacate the sentence and to withdraw her no contest plea; the court vacated only the unlawful re-test requirement, re-imposed the remaining sentence, denied the motion to withdraw the plea, and denied a stay pending appeal.
Pippert appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on withdrawal of plea (claiming the motion was "presentence" because the sentence was void) and (2) the sentence was an abuse of discretion for imposing maximum fines and a full two-year license suspension without limited driving privileges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pippert's post-sentence motion to withdraw plea required a presentence hearing because the original sentence was void in its entirety	Pippert: Sentence was void due to unlawful re-test requirement; under Boswell that makes her motion "presentence" and entitles her to liberal treatment and a hearing	State: Even if sentence was void in part, court retained discretion; hearing occurred during the proceeding; Boswell not controlling after Fischer	Court: Fischer limits Boswell; only the unlawful portion (re-test) was void, so the motion was postsentence. No hearing required because Pippert alleged no facts showing manifest injustice; denial affirmed.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing maximum fines and a two-year license suspension without limited driving privileges	Pippert: Court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors and her personal circumstances; maximum penalties were excessive given age, lack of record, health, and employment	State: Court considered PSI, victim impact, statements, video of incident, and weighed Pippert’s clean driving record against the catastrophic harm; sentence within statutory bounds	Court: Presumption that statutory factors were considered; record shows consideration of relevant factors and purposes of sentencing; sentence not an abuse of discretion.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be liberally allowed)
State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009) (motion to withdraw plea after a void sentence must be treated as presentence)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (vacating a void sentence places parties as if no sentence had been imposed)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (when part of a sentence is invalid, only the offending portion is void)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (discusses effects of vacating sentences not conforming to statute)
Romito v. Maxwell, 10 Ohio St.2d 266 (1967) (principle on effect of vacating void orders)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (postsentence withdrawal of plea requires showing of manifest injustice)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)