State v. Rembert
2017 Ohio 1173
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Albert L. Rembert entered Alford guilty pleas on June 9, 2011 in two Franklin County cases: felonious assault (10CR-4979) and intimidation of a crime victim/witness (11CR-1086); each plea led to five years of community control (plus 65 days jail in one case).
- At the time of the pleas Rembert was on parole for an earlier aggravated murder conviction.
- Rembert later filed post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motions (June 2016) seeking withdrawal of the pleas, alleging the trial court and counsel promised the pleas would not result in a parole violation (invoking Santobello) and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court denied the motions (July 6, 2016), finding no manifest injustice and no ineffective assistance; Rembert appealed.
- The appellate record did not include the June 9, 2011 plea hearing transcript; plea forms and judgment entries were in the record and were signed by Rembert.
- The Tenth District affirmed: it presumed the regularity of the plea hearing absent a transcript and held Rembert failed to show manifest injustice or prejudicial deficient performance, so no hearing or reversal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rembert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑sentence plea withdrawal is required because the court promised pleas would not trigger parole consequences (Santobello) | No — record lacks transcript; plea forms and entries refute promise; regularity presumed | Trial court and counsel promised acceptance would not cause parole violation; Santobello breach | Denied — no manifest injustice shown; absent transcript, regularity presumed; no proof of promise |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for securing the plea based on alleged assurances | No — no record evidence to show deficient performance or prejudice | Counsel assured plea "would not land him in prison" and failed to enforce promise | Denied — defendant failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; presumption of effective assistance stands |
| Whether the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the withdrawal motions | No — hearing not required unless facts, accepted as true, would entitle defendant to relief | Hearing required to develop evidence of broken promises and ineffective assistance | Denied — no reasonable likelihood of manifest injustice shown; self‑serving allegations insufficient to compel hearing |
| Whether the trial court/this court erred by not reviewing the June 9, 2011 plea transcript | No — defendant did not supply transcript and court was not required to review materials not submitted | Court should have reviewed transcript before ruling | Denied — defendant failed to submit transcript; failure to review (if any) is not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecution should fulfill plea‑induced promises)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standards for ineffective assistance claims in plea context)
- State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal allowed only to correct manifest injustice)