State v. Shivers, 2016 Ohio 1378

Dorjan Shivers was indicted on seven counts (two incidents) including rape, kidnapping, and other sexual offenses with specifications; plea agreement deleted specifications and nolled remaining counts.
On March 11, 2015, Shivers pleaded guilty to amended kidnapping (Count 3) and amended felonious assault (Count 7); sentenced to concurrent four-year terms.
After the plea but before sentencing, Shivers filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging he was under the influence of medication at the plea hearing, prior counsel failed to interview potential exculpatory witnesses, and he was not provided videotaped police interviews.
At the withdrawal hearing the state conceded it failed to produce two videotaped interviews (Shivers and witness Chris White) but argued written summaries were provided and there was no prejudice.
The trial court denied the motion; the court of appeals majority reversed, finding the state's Crim.R. 16(B) discovery violation prevented Shivers from making an informed plea and the denial was an abuse of discretion; one judge dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea based on undisclosed videotaped interviews	State: summaries in police reports were provided; no prejudice; failure to produce tapes was inadvertent	Shivers: nondisclosure of two hours of videotaped statements deprived him of material discovery and hampered an informed plea	Majority: Abuse of discretion — discovery violation prevented intelligent plea; reversal and remand
Whether plea was knowing/voluntary given medication and counsel performance	State: plea colloquy showed Shivers understood rights, penalties; counsel competent; no showing of prejudice	Shivers: medication impaired capacity and counsel failed to interview exculpatory witnesses or disclose tape existence	Dissent: Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R.11; record shows competent counsel and understanding; would have affirmed

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard for reviewing presentence motion to withdraw plea; abuse of discretion)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1978) (factors showing no abuse when denying withdrawal motion)
State v. Moore, 40 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 1988) (defendant entitled to discovery of his statements; prosecutor cannot pre-screen relevance)
State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1991) (prosecutor responsible for police files/discovery)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R.11: strict compliance for constitutional rights; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional rights)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (test for prejudice where Crim.R.11 only substantially complied)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2004) (presumption that failure to inform defendant of plea effect is not prejudicial absent assertion of actual innocence)
State v. Tomblin, 3 Ohio App.3d 17 (1st Dist. 1981) (disclosure of defendant statements critical to preparation and plea decisions)