State v. Sellman, 2019 Ohio 4185

Sellman was indicted for first-degree aggravated possession of methamphetamine with a forfeiture specification and a separate fifth-degree marijuana possession count; a search warrant at his home yielded meth, paraphernalia, firearms, and $2,975.
He entered a plea agreement: plead guilty to aggravated possession and the forfeiture specification; the State dismissed the marijuana count and agreed not to pursue trafficking charges or charges against his girlfriend.
At the plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, advised Sellman the sentence was mandatory (three to eleven years) and that he was ineligible for judicial release; Sellman affirmed understanding and pled guilty.
Sellman retained new counsel and, the day before sentencing, filed a presentence motion to withdraw his plea claiming insufficient communication with prior counsel, confusion about penalties (thought minimum was two years and believed he was eligible for judicial release), and unpursued suppression/entrapment defenses.
A nearly two-hour evidentiary hearing followed; former counsel (Lopez) testified he discussed the plea, the three-year minimum, and judicial-release ineligibility with Sellman; the trial court found Sellman not credible, Lopez credible, denied the motion, and later sentenced Sellman.
On appeal the Second District affirmed: the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the presentence withdrawal motion and the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sellman)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sellman’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Fish factors favored denial: counsel was competent; full Crim.R.11 colloquy; full evidentiary hearing; no reasonable, legitimate basis to withdraw; Sellman’s testimony was not credible	Insufficient communication with prior counsel; last-minute discovery of correct mandatory minimum and judicial-release ineligibility; possible suppression/Franks and entrapment defenses not pursued	Denied. Trial court reasonably found most Fish factors did not favor withdrawal and Sellman failed to show a reasonable, legitimate basis; no abuse of discretion
Whether Sellman’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary	Crim.R.11 was substantially/strictly complied with: court and plea form warned of the three-year minimum and judicial-release ineligibility; Sellman affirmed understanding; prior counsel corroborated advisements	Sellman was confused about the minimum sentence and mistakenly believed he was eligible for judicial release	Affirmed. Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; record and counsel’s credible testimony rebut Sellman’s claim of confusion

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992) (presentence plea-withdrawal standard and need for reasonable basis to withdraw plea)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995) (set of factors used to evaluate presentence plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing plea-withdrawal rulings)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 893 N.E.2d 462 (2008) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 advisements)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (distinguishing strict vs. substantial compliance under Crim.R.11)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for proving a warrant affidavit contained material falsehoods made knowingly or recklessly)