State v. Harris

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1700

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the motion was filed the day before appellant was scheduled to be sentenced and the record demonstrated appellant had a mere change of heart about pleading guilty, was represented by competent and effective counsel, afforded a complete and extensive Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, understood the nature of the charges and possible consequences of pleading guilty, and was provided with a full hearing on the motion to withdraw. Furthermore, appellant's argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective representation was without merit where appellant asked the appellate court to speculate that there were additional \facts and evidence\ not presented by trial counsel that would have supported withdrawal of the plea.