State v. Robinson, 2013 Ohio 5672

On Jan. 8, 2006, Robinson and co-defendants forcibly entered a residence, bound victims, held one at gunpoint, assaulted another (including dousing with hot oil), and fled with cash/property; an infant was present.
In Dec. 2007 a 17-count indictment charged Robinson with aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, complicity to felonious assault, grand theft, and weapons-under-disability; Robinson later agreed to plead guilty to one count of several offenses with an agreed aggregate 15-year sentence.
The trial court accepted the plea and sentence on May 7, 2009; Robinson did not appeal at that time.
Nearly four years later (Mar. 20, 2013) Robinson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, attaching an affidavit from codefendant Stallworth recanting his prior statements that implicated Robinson.
The trial court denied the post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion, finding Robinson failed to show a manifest injustice; Robinson appealed pro se, raising claims that the court failed to issue findings of fact/conclusions, his plea was not knowing/voluntary due to new evidence, and trial counsel was ineffective.
The Twelfth District affirmed, holding (inter alia) recantation was suspect given delay, the affidavit could be discounted as self-serving, Crim.R. 32.1 does not require written findings, and counsel’s plea advice did not constitute ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Robinson)	Held
Whether trial court erred by not issuing findings of fact/conclusions when denying post‑sentence withdrawal	Court: no requirement under Crim.R. 32.1 to file findings	Robinson: trial court should have made findings of fact and conclusions of law	Denied — no findings required; claim overruled
Whether recanted affidavit/new evidence warrants post‑sentence withdrawal (manifest injustice)	State: recantation is self‑serving, delayed, and subject to disbelief	Robinson: Stallworth’s affidavit shows he was not involved; plea not voluntary	Denied — recantation viewed with suspicion; delay and credibility problems foreclose manifest injustice
Whether plea was not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made due to alleged new evidence	State: plea colloquy and signed plea show voluntariness; new evidence insufficient	Robinson: would not have pled if not for false testimony implicating him	Denied — plea was voluntary; change in witness testimony insufficient post‑sentence
Whether trial counsel was ineffective in advising plea (basis to withdraw plea)	State: counsel’s advice to accept plea is not ineffective; signed plea acknowledges counsel’s competence	Robinson: counsel ignored innocence and pressured plea by warning of severe punishment	Denied — no deficient performance shown; no reasonable probability of different outcome

State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (recognizing burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea post‑sentence)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (plea‑withdrawal appellate standard and review of trial court discretion)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (defining abuse of discretion standard)
State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin, 91 Ohio St.3d 50 (Crim.R. 32.1 does not require written findings on plea‑withdrawal motions)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (guilty pleas must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253 (6th Cir.) (recanting affidavits are viewed with extreme suspicion)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (entry of guilty plea constitutes admission of the acts alleged)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (standards for ineffective assistance claims in plea contexts)