City of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. Thompson

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The Hunt Court stated: Hunt's claims that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered or that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of Green, all of which are dependent on the nonexistent transcript, are without merit. We must presume regularity in the proceedings and that thethree-judgepanelcompliedwithGreenandCrim.R.11. Further, the final entry of conviction indicates that Hunt was notified of his constitutional rights during the plea process and Hunt has not demonstrated any other legal error from the available record of the proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Hunt at ¶ 10-11. {¶ 32} Here, appellant waited nearly two decades to file his first two motions to vacate his conviction and more than two decades to file the motion to withdraw his plea. By that time, any audio recording or transcript of the plea proceedings had long since been lawfully destroyed pursuant to Sup.R. 26.05(C). Appellant, therefore, is at fault with respect to nonproduction of a transcript or recording of the plea proceedings. Hunt and other cases require that we presume regularity, i.e., compliance with Crim.R. ... 2943.031(A) warning, and that failure to do so should not be subject to the manifest-injustice standard even if sentencing has already occurred. Id. at ¶ 26. In other words, the General Assembly “created a substantive statutory right for certain criminal defendants and ... this right therefore prevails over the general procedural provisions of Crim.R. 32.1.” Id. at ¶ 27. Francis, by its terms, was limited to this substantive statutory right. Appellant has notarguedthatanyitemsonhislistofcollateralconsequences fit within any such exceptions. {¶ 43} In State v.