State v. Barker

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Clark County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Courtney Barker’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to rape. The court held that Barker failed to demonstrate manifest injustice, ineffective assistance of counsel, or any other basis warranting withdrawal of the plea under Ohio Criminal Rule 32.1.

Holdings

1. A post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be granted only to correct a manifest injustice, and Barker failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances or fundamental flaw necessary to meet that standard.
2. The denial of a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
3. Counsel's relaying of the prosecutor's alleged statement about potential sentences, without more, did not constitute deficient performance or establish coercion, and Barker's unsupported assertion that counsel failed to investigate did not establish ineffective assistance or manifest injustice.
4. The trial court was not required to provide a separate explanation for Barker's withdrawal of his not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity plea, and accepting the guilty plea after that withdrawal was not error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Barker's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Ohio Criminal Rule 32.1.
2. Whether the alleged failure to investigate and alleged coercive advice by trial counsel established ineffective assistance or a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of the guilty plea.
3. Whether the trial court erred by accepting the guilty plea without requiring a separate explanation for the withdrawal of Barker's not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity plea.

Disposition

affirmed