State v. Royal
2017 Ohio 4146
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Neal Royal was indicted on multiple counts including two counts of felonious assault and child endangering; he pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault and one count of child endangering in exchange for dismissal of four counts.
- Pleas were taken July 11, 2016; sentencing occurred August 11, 2016, when the trial court imposed consecutive seven-year terms (14 years total).
- At sentencing Royal sought to withdraw his pleas, alleging defense counsel had told him he would receive "four to six years."
- Defense counsel acknowledged predicting a 4–6 year sentence range but denied promising any sentence or agreement; the trial court had informed Royal at plea that exposure was up to 8 years per count and possibly consecutive sentences (up to 16 years).
- Royal filed a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas (oral at sentencing, not later supported by a sworn motion), which the trial court denied; Royal appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective at plea stage | State: counsel’s performance was not deficient | Royal: counsel misinformed him about sentencing likelihood (told him 4–6 years) | Court: no ineffective assistance; prediction ≠ promise |
| Whether postsentence withdrawal should be granted under Crim.R. 32.1 (manifest injustice) | State: plea was voluntary and informed; inaccurate prediction alone does not create manifest injustice | Royal: plea was involuntary because induced by counsel’s sentencing prediction | Court: denial affirmed — no manifest injustice; plea complied with Crim.R. 11 and Royal knew exposure up to 16 years |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the Crim.R. 32.1 motion | State: court properly exercised discretion after brief hearing | Royal: court should have allowed withdrawal after his oral request | Court: no abuse of discretion; change of heart is insufficient |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the motion | State: facts alleged did not compel withdrawal; no sworn motion filed | Royal: hearing required to resolve counsel’s alleged misstatements | Court: no hearing required; court heard oral assertions and found counsel credible |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (plea-stage ineffective-assistance standard for prejudice)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (standard for ineffective assistance in Ohio plea context)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (manifest injustice standard for postsentence plea withdrawal)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11 and voluntariness of pleas)
- Blatnik v. [unnamed in opinion], 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (inaccurate sentence prediction does not invalidate plea)