State v. Woljevach
2022 Ohio 932
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In 2005 a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Eric Woljevach on five counts; he pleaded guilty the same year to drug trafficking, cultivation of marijuana, and child endangering. All specifications were dismissed. He received 1.5 years of community control on the felonies and a suspended six-month jail term on the misdemeanor.
- Appellee had prior convictions (1997–2003). He filed but later withdrew applications to expunge/seal records in 2011–2019.
- In April 2021 Woljevach moved to withdraw his 2005 guilty plea and proposed to plead guilty to a new, narrower set of charges so he could seek sealing of convictions; he argued he had pleaded under the misapprehension that the convictions could be sealed and that the convictions impaired his locksmith business prospects (Michigan licensing).
- The trial court granted the post‑sentence motion to withdraw the plea after a June 29, 2021 hearing, citing (1) inability to work as a locksmith in Michigan because of the child‑endangering conviction, (2) changed attitudes toward marijuana, (3) lack of harm to the child victim, and (4) injustice of maintaining a child‑endangering label.
- The State appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding the record did not show the extraordinary/manifest‑injustice circumstances required to permit post‑sentence withdrawal—the trial court relied on post‑plea developments and unsupported assertions and ignored the 15‑year delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Woljevach) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a post‑sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea | Misapprehension about collateral consequences and post‑plea changes cannot establish the extraordinary circumstances needed for post‑sentence withdrawal | He pleaded believing convictions could be sealed; convictions have impaired his livelihood and licensing prospects | Reversed: no extraordinary/manifest injustice shown; trial court abused its discretion |
| Whether a mistaken belief about expungement eligibility or later changed circumstances justify withdrawal after long delay | Such collateral‑consequence misapprehensions, and post‑plea developments, do not supply a fundamental flaw in the plea; 15‑year delay undermines credibility | The collateral consequence (ineligibility to seal) is severe and unjust; changed law/societal views on marijuana and lack of harm to child support withdrawal | Held against defendant: post‑hoc facts and delay weigh heavily against allowing withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 motions are addressed to trial court discretion)
- State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 (2019) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal permitted only in extraordinary cases showing manifest injustice)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (undue delay in filing postsentence withdrawal motion harms movant credibility and weighs against relief)