State v. O'Garro

Citations

• 209 N.E.3d 852
• 2023 Ohio 634

Syllabus

In ruling on appellant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea due to the sentencing court's failure to advise appellant her conviction may result in deportation or exclusion from admission to the United States, the trial court had the discretion to consider appellant's 11-year delay in filing the motion as a primary factor supporting denial of the motion. The trial court did not err when it refused to apply Padilla in assessing trial counsel's performance during the plea process because Padilla was decided well after appellant's conviction became final, and both the Supreme Court of the United States and this court have held that Padilla may not be applied retroactively. Even if trial counsel had a duty to advise appellant a conviction may result in her deportation or exclusion from admission to the United States, appellant's post hoc assertion that she would not have pleaded guilty to permitting child abuse, if so advised, lacks credibility in light of her lengthy delay in filing the motion, the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt, and the possibility of a much longer prison sentence if appellant were found guilty at trial. Judgment affirmed.