State v. Vassalle, 2014 Ohio 4426

On Dec. 6, 2013, Timothy Vassalle was cited for OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and failure to control; a separate charge (Dec. 9 filing) alleged carrying/using a firearm while under the influence (R.C. 2923.15).
On Dec. 9, 2013, at arraignment, record entries state Vassalle waived counsel after discussion, was advised of Crim.R. 10/11 rights, and pled no contest to all charges; the court found him guilty and sentenced him (concurrent short jail terms, suspensions, fines, community control).
On Dec. 23, 2013, counsel Gene Murray filed post-sentence motions to withdraw the no contest pleas, alleging a mistaken plea: Murray had called the jail Dec. 8 and asked staff to tell Vassalle to plead not guilty, but jail personnel allegedly relayed a message advising Vassalle to plead no contest.
The trial court held a hearing, considered stipulated audio recordings (arraignment and the jail call reportedly presented at the hearing), and ordered written closing arguments; the trial court denied the motions in a one-paragraph ruling adopting the State’s findings.
Vassalle appealed but failed to provide transcripts of the arraignment or the post-judgment hearing; the court reporter later filed an affidavit that one hearing’s recording was partially unavailable due to equipment malfunction.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Vassalle failed to meet the heavy post-sentence burden to show manifest injustice and noting the appellant’s duty to provide an adequate record for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post-sentence motion to withdraw a no-contest plea should be granted	State: Vassalle’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered; his later claim of mistake is not credible and is untimely	Vassalle: He entered no-contest pleas by mistake because jail staff relayed an incorrect message from his retained counsel instructing him to plead no contest instead of not guilty	Denied: Trial court did not abuse discretion; appellant failed to show manifest injustice and did not provide an adequate record to overturn the ruling
Whether lack of a complete transcript requires presumption of regularity	State: Record (including arraignment recording) was available to trial court; appellant bears burden to furnish transcript on appeal	Vassalle: Equipment malfunction prevented full transcript; silent portions do not excuse failure to supply alternative statement under App.R.9	Affirmed: Appellant failed to use App.R.9 alternatives and thus appellate court presumes regularity

State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (post-sentence plea withdrawal only to correct manifest injustice)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (appellant bears burden to provide adequate record on appeal)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (waiver of constitutional rights must affirmatively appear in the record)
State v. Nathan, 99 Ohio App.3d 722 (trial court’s denial of plea-withdrawal motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)