State v. Thomas, 2016 Ohio 4961

John E. Thomas was indicted on seven counts arising from a May 28, 2015 police pursuit and arrest (including felonious assault of an officer, failure to comply, vandalism, drug possession, DUI, resisting arrest).
On September 9, 2015, Thomas accepted a plea agreement: guilty to an amended Count 1 (attempted felonious assault naming both officers) and Counts 3–6; Counts 2 and 7 were nolled.
The trial court conducted a plea colloquy; Thomas acknowledged understanding the rights he was waiving, the consequences, and that no threats or promises were made.
Before sentencing, Thomas filed pro se motions (including a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and a motion to replace appointed counsel), claiming he was "suckered" by false promises and misunderstood potential sentence exposure.
At sentencing, the court summarily denied Thomas’ pro se filings, proceeded to sentencing, and imposed an aggregate prison term of 2 years and 9 months plus fines and postrelease control.
On appeal, Thomas argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his pleas without holding a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a presentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas without a hearing	The trial court properly refused to consider Thomas’ pro se motion because he was represented by counsel and counsel did not join the motion	Thomas argued his pro se motion stated legitimate grounds (he was misled about sentence exposure and "suckered"), requiring a hearing under Crim.R. 32.1 and Xie	Court affirmed: no hearing required where defendant filed a pro se withdrawal motion while represented by counsel and counsel did not join it; pro se filings are not proper vehicle for relief when represented (denial not an abuse of discretion)

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be freely allowed but defendant has no absolute right; hearing required when motion facially valid)
State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2004) (a defendant cannot simultaneously invoke right to counsel and act pro se; no hybrid representation)
State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (once defendant accepts counsel and does not move to proceed pro se, he may not act as co-counsel)
State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 1988) (to discharge court-appointed counsel defendant must show breakdown in attorney-client relationship jeopardizing effective assistance)
State v. Deal, 17 Ohio St.2d 17 (Ohio 1969) (trial judge must inquire into complaints about counsel during serious criminal proceedings when allegations are specific)