State v. West, 2017 Ohio 8474

Background

Jason West pleaded guilty to multiple offenses (telecommunications harassment, menacing by stalking, obstruction, intimidation) and was sentenced to 10 years; convictions were upheld on appeal though post-release control sentencing was partly vacated.
West filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming denial of a fair/unbiased trial due to an investigator who was also a victim and tied to the prosecutor’s office, and challenging an investigator’s participation after recusal.
He asserted counsel prevented him from moving to withdraw his plea before sentencing (including an alleged in-chambers denial by the judge) and that appellate counsel declined to raise the issue because it was not on the record.
The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the claims meritless or barred by res judicata, and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing. West appealed.
The Ninth District affirmed, concluding West failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiencies, failed to present a legitimate basis for pre-sentence plea withdrawal, and failed to show entitlement to a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (West)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived West of the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing	Counsel prevented him from moving to withdraw plea (in-chambers denial; silenced at sentencing); appellate counsel refused to raise it	West offered no legitimate reason for pre-sentence withdrawal and cannot show reasonable probability of a different outcome	Denied — no prejudice shown; withdrawal claim fails
Whether claims were barred by res judicata	Ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the record and thus could not be raised on direct appeal; investigator-recusal claim was distinct	Claims either were meritless or could have been raised on direct appeal	Denied — res judicata applies or any error harmless because claims lack merit
Whether trial counsel(s) were ineffective in other respects (venue, discovery, investigator removal, failure to develop defense)	Counsel failed to move for change of venue, failed to contest investigator involvement, failed to review discovery or develop defense, and failed to prevent plea withdrawal consequences	West did not show that any unfiled motions would have been granted or that, but for counsel’s conduct, he would not have pled guilty or avoided additional charges	Denied — no reasonable probability of a different result; no prejudice proved
Whether the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition	Petition raised factual claims (ineffective assistance; investigator issue) warranting a hearing under R.C. 2953.21(C)	The petition, affidavits, and record did not present sufficient operative facts outside the record to warrant a hearing	Denied — no entitlement to a hearing; trial court acted within discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard for reviewing postconviction petitions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (objective standard for counsel performance)
State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 (Ohio 2016) (prejudice/probability standard reaffirmed)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (motion to withdraw plea addressed to trial court discretion)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2004) (scope of trial court discretion under plea-withdrawal procedures)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars raising issues on postconviction that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 2016) (evidentiary hearing on postconviction relief not automatic)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (showing required to obtain a postconviction evidentiary hearing)