State v. Hicks

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 974

Syllabus

Abuse of discretion presentence motion Crim.R. 11 vacate plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hicks's presentence motion to withdraw plea. Including that Hicks had a change of heart due to the influence of others no manifest injustice occurred to require Hicks's plea be vacated where it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and the trial court did not completely fail to inform Hicks of the maximum penalty he face trial court complied with Crim.R. 11, speculation that \others\ committed the offense without more is not enough to vacate plea sentence is contrary to law where the trial court ordered a term of years at the oral sentencing hearing, which was different than what was ordered on the JE clerical mistake to be corrected by nunc pro tunc JE to provide Hicks with complete notifications of the consequences face for violations postrelease-control supervision.