Legal Opinion

State v. Caraballo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1985No. 84-1265PublishedCited by 138 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole issue presented upon appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the felony charge of drug trafficking. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the court’s ruling.

After a defendant has been sentenced, a court may permit withdrawal of a plea only to correct a manifest injustice. Crim. R. 32.1. The burden of establishing the existence of such injustice is upon the defendant. State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 261 [3 O.O.3d 402], paragraph one of the syllabus. The logic behind this precept is to discourage a defendant from…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State v. PeterseimOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Sydney B. Kadwell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

3Cited by138 opinions

  1. State v. StumpfOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State v. BoswellOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. Romero (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  4. State v. LeonhartOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. State v. MaysOhio Court of Appeals · 2008

133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API