State v. Schneider, 2011 Ohio 4097

State v. Schneider involves the State appealing three consolidated cases after Schneider's case returned from this court’s Schneider I remand for resentencing.
Schneider pled guilty in 2009 to 13 counts in a sprawling securities/financial crime case; the trial court sentenced to 3 years on each count, all concurrent, with 5 years postrelease control.
On Schneider I, this court held her sentence for Count 1 was illegal under R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) and remanded to resentence, noting the state cannot advocate a lawful sentence.
Upon remand in 2010, a new judge and SPD represented Schneider; the SPD moved to withdraw the pleas, claiming lack of awareness of maximum penalty.
At resentencing, the court stated counsel had been appointed and denied the motion to withdraw; Schneider’s original plea colloquy allegedly misinformed her about penalties.
The trial court ultimately vacated Schneider’s plea-related convictions, and this court held the first assignment of error to be meritorious, vacating the pleas and convictions and remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas?	Schneider contends the plea was entered with inadequate penalty information.	Schneider argues the court failed to provide a full, fair inquiry into withdrawal grounds.	Sustained; pleas and convictions vacated, case remanded.
Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by misadvising the plea consequences?	Schneider asserts ineffective assistance from counsel prior to plea.	State contends no deficient performance established.	Moot.
Was Schneider denied constitutional right to counsel of choice at resentencing?	Schneider challenges appointment of new counsel for resentencing.	State maintains proper appointment processes were followed.	Moot.
Did resentencing following remand violate due process by imposing a greater term?	Schneider argues sentencing increases after reversal.	State contends resentencing compliant with remand posture.	Moot.

State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (presentence withdrawal motion liberally granted when void sentence; requires proper hearing)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992-Ohio-521) (liberal standard for presentence withdrawal of guilty plea)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (plea invalid where defendant not properly informed of maximum penalty)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (need for knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea via plea colloquy)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1979) (premise that withdrawal standards apply post-plea)