plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard in Ohio

2022A. Standard of Review {¶8} “An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St. 3d 490 , 2004-Ohio-6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’s discretion); State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’

2022A. Standard of Review {¶8} “An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St. 3d 490 , 2004-Ohio-6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’s discretion); State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’

2024“An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206 , ¶ 15.

2024“An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206 , ¶ 15.

2024“Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential and does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34 , citing State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 28} Appellant asserts his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to ineffective assistance of counsel; thus, a manifest injustice occurred warranting withdrawal of his plea.

2024“Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential and does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34 , citing State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 28} Appellant asserts his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to ineffective assistance of counsel; thus, a manifest injustice occurred warranting withdrawal of his plea.

2024“Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential and does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34 , citing State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 28} Appellant asserts his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to ineffective assistance of counsel; thus, a manifest injustice occurred warranting withdrawal of his plea.

2024“Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential and does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34 , citing State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 28} Appellant asserts his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to ineffective assistance of counsel; thus, a manifest injustice occurred warranting withdrawal of his plea.

2022A. Standard of Review {¶8} “An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St. 3d 490 , 2004-Ohio-6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’s discretion); State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’

2022A. Standard of Review {¶8} “An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St. 3d 490 , 2004-Ohio-6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’s discretion); State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus (deciding a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial court’

2026Id.

2024Id., citing State v. Ketterer, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59 . {¶ 10} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2023Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208 , 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998).

2023Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208 , 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998).

2023State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2004-Ohio- 6894, 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32; State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 13 . {¶18} Appellant asserts that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea on the grounds that his conviction in Portage County violates the double jeopardy clause, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for refusing to raise the claim in the trial court at the time of his plea in February 2020.

2023State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2004-Ohio- 6894, 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 32; State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 13 . {¶18} Appellant asserts that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea on the grounds that his conviction in Portage County violates the double jeopardy clause, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for refusing to raise the claim in the trial court at the time of his plea in February 2020.

2023Accordingly, “[i]f a defendant shows that he or she did not enter a plea knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily, the defendant may establish a manifest injustice sufficient to warrant withdrawal of the guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Artuso, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0009, 2022-Ohio-3283, ¶ 21 ; see also State v. Garcia, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A- 0066, 2023-Ohio-2446 , ¶ 13.” {¶17} We review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2022A court abuses its discretion when it “exercise[s] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3304 , __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 35. {¶ 18} “The doctrine of res judicata bars a criminal defendant from raising and litigating in any proceedings any defense or claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal from the conviction.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Young, 2d Dist.

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2022The Supreme Court has defined “ ‘abuse of discretion’ as an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.’ ” State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2014-Ohio-1966 , 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67 , quoting State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been described as including a ruling that lacks a ‘sound reasoning process.’ ” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio- 2407, 972 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Communit

2021State v. Parsons, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22200, 2005-Ohio-268, ¶6 . {¶9} Under either standard, “[a]n appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206, ¶15 , citing Smith, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2020Id., citing State v. Helms, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 96, 2015-Ohio-1708 , ¶ 11. {¶22} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

2009Id. at ¶ 16, citing State v. Fish (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 240 . {¶ 8} Accordingly, an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.