State v. Haser

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas' denial of Donald Haser's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that Haser did not present sufficient evidentiary material to establish manifest injustice or require an evidentiary hearing, and that findings of fact and conclusions of law were not required. The court also held that his challenge to the acceptance of the guilty plea was barred by res judicata.

Holdings

1. An evidentiary hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is required only when the factual allegations, if accepted as true, would require withdrawal of the plea. Because Haser offered only uncorroborated, self-serving assertions that counsel was ineffective and did not provide sufficient evidentiary-quality materials showing manifest injustice, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.
2. Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
3. A challenge to the validity of the original guilty plea that could have been raised on direct appeal is barred by res judicata when raised in an appeal from the denial of a later motion to withdraw the plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Haser's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether the trial court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
3. Whether Haser's challenge to the trial court's original acceptance of his guilty plea was barred by res judicata when raised in an appeal from the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.

Disposition

affirmed