{¶ 3} In return for dismissal of the one count of possession of chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, Plemons pled guilty to the remaining charges of aggravated possession of a controlled substance and two counts of illegal manufacture of methamphetamine on February 13, 2004. Prior to sentencing on those сharges, Plemons was arrested for possession of heroin, in violation of R.C. §
{¶ 4} The trial court sentenced Plemons to eleven months for the possession of oxycodone and heroin and six years incarceration for each count of illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, all sentences to be served concurrently. Plemons driver's license was also suspended for six months.
{¶ 5} As previously mentioned, Plemons filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas on January 6, 2005, and the trial court subsequently overruled said motion on April 14, 2005.
{¶ 6} It is from this judgment that Plemons now appeals.
{¶ 8} "THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A HEARING IN THIS MATTER AND IN OVERRULING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA."
{¶ 9} In his only assignment, Plemons contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his pleas without a hearing because he did not enter the pleas knowingly and voluntarily. A confessed heroin addict, Plemons argues that the withdrawal of his pleas was necessary to correct a manifest injustiсe. Essentially, Plemons asserts that his heroin addiction prevented him from understanding the proceedings against him and that his counsel provided ineffective representation by not informing the court of his condition and falsely promising him that he would receive only two years incarceration if he pled guilty to the offenses. We disagree.
{¶ 10} Crim. R. 32.1 provides that a trial court may grant a defendant's post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty pleа only to correct a manifest injustice. State v. Bush (2002),
{¶ 11} When, as in the case before us, the movant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea after the trial court has imposed a sentence, he bears the burden of establishing the existence of a manifest injustice. Smith, supra at ¶ 1 of the syllabus. A defendant can only establish a manifest injustice in "extraordinary сases." Id. at 264. A manifest injustice has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as a "clear or openly unjust act." State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner (1998),
{¶ 12} In State v. Hartzell (August 20, 1999), Montgomery County App. Casе No. 17499, we stated the following:
{¶ 13} "Matters outside the record that allegedly corrupted the defendant's choice to enter a plea of guilty or no contest so as to render the plea less than knowing and voluntary are proper grounds for an R.C.
{¶ 14} With that in mind, we turn to the instant apрeal wherein Plemons contends that the alleged ineffective assistance provided by his trial counsel amounts to a manifest injustice requiring withdrawal of his guilty pleas. In view of our holding in Hartzell, supra, the representations allegedly made by Plemons' counsel to him with respect to sentencing cоuld have properly been the subject of a petition for post-conviction relief made pursuant to R.C. §
{¶ 15} Additionally, it shоuld be noted that a defendant's own self-serving declarations or affidavits are insufficient to rebut the record on review which shows that his plea was voluntary. State v. Kapper (1983),
{¶ 16} Plemons' sister, Shelby McCoy, also provided аn affidavit in which she attested to her brother's impaired state during the plea proceedings. In her brief, generalized affidavit concerning her brоther's alleged condition and quality of legal representation, she merely repeats the same self-serving accusations made by Plemons in his own affidavit. Like Plemons', McCoy's affidavit is undermined by her brother's statements made on the record at his plea hearing. Lastly, we have viewed the videotape of each hearing before the trial court, and we agree with the court's observations that Plemons was not impaired and that his pleas were both knowing and voluntary.
{¶ 17} In light of the foregoing, we find that Plemons has to demonstrate a manifest injustice necessary for Crim. R. 32.1 relief. Thus, the triаl court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Plemons' motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
{¶ 18} Plemons' sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . .
Grady, P.J. and Fain, J., concur.