State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 1387

Williams pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine with a firearm specification and a forfeiture specification in Clermont County; two felonies and three specifications were dismissed as part of the negotiated plea.
Approximately three months after sentencing, Williams, pro se, moved to withdraw his plea; the trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Williams claimed the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given due to ineffective assistance of counsel and incorrect information about penalties, and that the evidence did not support the charged offenses.
Crim.R. 32.1 governs post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea and requires manifest injustice for relief; the court must apply an abuse-of-discretion standard.
A transcript was not filed for appeal; the court presumed regularity of proceedings, including a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy, and affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Post-sentence withdrawal abuse of discretion	Williams asserts abuse and manifest injustice	State argues no manifest injustice and proper discretion	No abuse; manifest injustice not shown
Hearing requirement for Crim.R. 32.1 motion	Hearing required to resolve factual disputes	Hearing unnecessary absent disputed facts	Hearing not required; decision affirmed

State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence withdrawal; abuse of discretion limitations)
State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6240 (Ohio 12th Dist.) (post-sentence withdrawal and counsel ineffectiveness considerations)
State v. Degaro, 2009-Ohio-2966 (Ohio 12th Dist.) (hearing requirement when withdrawn plea evidence needed)
State v. Casey, 2008-Ohio-560 (Ohio 5th Dist.) (case on Crim.R. 32.1 procedures and hearings)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (ineffective assistance standard (Strickland))