State v. Walker, 2017 Ohio 511

Francis P. Walker, a Liberian citizen admitted to the U.S. in 1986, pled guilty in April 2003 to fourth-degree burglary (lesser-included of aggravated burglary). The plea form noted he was not a U.S. citizen; the trial court did not advise him of immigration consequences as required by R.C. 2943.031(A).
He received community control and completed it in 2007. He held Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and filed recurring TPS/employment‑authorization paperwork that warned felony convictions could affect eligibility.
Federal immigration action: removal proceedings had been administratively closed in 2003 after TPS approval; in 2012–2014 federal notices indicated his felony conviction affected TPS/authorization and the government moved to re-calendar removal proceedings in 2014.
Walker moved in April 2014 to withdraw his guilty plea under R.C. 2943.031(D) for lack of the required advisement; the trial court denied the motion as untimely and for lack of prejudice shown to satisfy the statute. This court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether the conviction may subject him to deportation; on remand the trial court denied the motion again, finding it untimely and prejudicial to the State.
Walker appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court properly considered timeliness and whether the burglary conviction may subject him to deportation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Walker)	Held
Whether the court may consider timeliness when deciding an R.C. 2943.031(D) motion	Timeliness is a permissible discretionary factor; the trial court properly considered Walker's long delay and prejudice to the State	Timeliness is irrelevant to relief under R.C. 2943.031(D); if conviction may cause deportation, plea must be set aside regardless of delay	Court: Timeliness is a valid discretionary factor under Francis; trial court properly considered and denied the motion as untimely and prejudicial
Whether a 2003 fourth-degree burglary conviction may subject Walker to deportation (statutory showing under R.C. 2943.031(D))	State contested that Walker met the statutory showing and emphasized prejudice from delay	Walker argued the remand required resolution of whether the conviction may result in deportation and that timeliness should not bar relief if the statutory test is met	Court: Because trial court permissibly denied the motion on timeliness/prejudice grounds, the merits (whether the conviction may cause deportation) were rendered moot

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2004) (timeliness is one of several discretionary factors a trial court may consider under R.C. 2943.031(D); delay does not automatically bar relief but may justify denial depending on circumstances)