Background
Hunter Rehard was indicted for second-degree-felony aggravated trafficking in drugs after law enforcement intercepted him transporting more than 80 grams of methamphetamine from Columbus to Coshocton for resale. Under a plea agreement, Rehard pleaded guilty, and the State agreed to take no position on the presentence investigation, continuation of bond, or sentencing.
At sentencing, defense counsel requested an indefinite prison term of four to six years, while the State made no sentencing argument. After considering the presentence investigation and Rehard’s recent minimum sentence for a similar drug offense, the trial court imposed an indefinite term of seven to ten-and-a-half years. Rehard appealed, arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to move immediately to withdraw his guilty plea after the court imposed a longer sentence than the defense had anticipated.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Rehard failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under the ineffective-assistance standard. The record contained no evidence that Rehard asked to withdraw his plea or wished to proceed to trial, and he did not make that assertion on appeal.
The court also concluded that a withdrawal motion would have lacked a reasonable basis. Rehard had acknowledged during the plea hearing that he understood the possible sentencing range, faced a mandatory prison term, and had received no sentencing promises. Because there was no jointly recommended sentence and the imposed term fell within the statutory range, disappointment with the sentence amounted only to a change of heart—not a basis for plea withdrawal or the manifest injustice required for post-sentence relief.
Key Takeaways
- Defense counsel is not ineffective for declining to seek withdrawal of a guilty plea when the defendant neither requests withdrawal nor presents a reasonable or legitimate basis for it.
- A sentence exceeding defense counsel’s request does not justify plea withdrawal when no agreed sentencing recommendation existed and the defendant understood the possible penalties.
- Post-sentence plea withdrawal requires manifest injustice, and an unexpectedly severe but lawful sentence does not satisfy that demanding standard.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel’s failure to seek plea withdrawal require more than speculation about what counsel might have done after sentencing. The record must support both a genuine basis for withdrawal and a reasonable probability that the motion could have changed the result.
It also reinforces the practical importance of a complete plea colloquy. A defendant’s acknowledgment that no sentencing promises were made and that the full penalty range is understood can defeat a later claim that counsel should have sought withdrawal merely because the court imposed a harsher sentence than anticipated.