State v. Robinson, 2022 Ohio 82

Robinson, a Jamaican native and lawful permanent resident, was indicted on multiple felony counts arising from a violent drug-related incident.
Under a plea agreement (Feb 7, 2018) he pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon, drug possession, and a reduced misdemeanor for aggravated menacing; the court advised him that a conviction may result in deportation under R.C. 2943.031 and he acknowledged understanding that risk.
He was sentenced to six months of community-control sanctions (Mar 26, 2018), served the term, and was deported to Jamaica on Oct 25, 2018; he did not appeal the conviction or sentence.
More than two years later (Dec 31, 2020) Robinson filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to vacate his plea alleging trial counsel misadvised him that the court’s deportation colloquy was an “empty formality”; he supported that claim only with his own affidavit.
The trial court denied the motion and a subsequent request for findings; Robinson appealed pro se but did not timely appeal the denial of the Crim.R. 32.1 motion (appeal filed beyond 30 days).
The appellate court affirmed: Robinson’s request for trial-court findings was unnecessary under Crim.R. 32.1, his appeal of the 32.1 denial was untimely, and on the merits he failed to show deficient performance or prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial) under Strickland/Hill and the Romero prejudice factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying Robinson’s motion for factual findings and conclusions of law	State: Crim.R. 32.1 does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law; denial proper	Robinson: court must make findings to support dismissal of motion to withdraw plea	Held: No error — Crim.R. 32.1 does not require those findings; trial court properly denied the request
Whether Robinson’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea should be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel (misleading advice re: deportation)	State: Motion untimely; Robinson offered only a self‑serving affidavit, no contemporaneous evidence of prejudice or that he would have insisted on trial	Robinson: Counsel told him immigration admonition was an "empty formality" and he would not have pled guilty if correctly advised	Held: Appeal of 32.1 denial untimely; on the merits, Robinson failed to prove deficiency or prejudice — self‑serving affidavit, unreasonable delay, strong reasons (avoid prison, plea reduced exposure), and Romero factors do not show reasonable probability he would have trialled instead of pleading

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for counsel’s errors)
State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 (2019) (sets nonexhaustive Romero factors for prejudice inquiry in plea withdrawal claims)
State v. Bozso, 162 Ohio St.3d 68 (2020) (court evaluates defendant’s ties to U.S. and decisionmaking in prejudice analysis)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (movant bears burden to show manifest injustice for postsentence plea withdrawal)
State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin, 91 Ohio St.3d 50 (2001) (Crim.R. 32.1 does not require trial‑court findings of fact and conclusions of law)