City of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. Thompson
CA Ohio (8d) · May 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Ohio (8d)
- Record ID
- city-of-shaker-heights-v-andre-d-thompson-2026-05-21
- Observed outcome
- The trial court's judgment denying the motion to withdraw the plea was affirmed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, finding no manifest injustice. It explicitly rejected the defendant's reliance on multiple fabricated or hallucinated case citations, noting that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof and that the presumption of regularity applied to the underlying proceedings.
The court reasoned that the defendant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice, as the absence of a transcript was due to the defendant's own delay, triggering a presumption of regularity. Regarding the citations, the court determined they were either non-existent, mischaracterized, or appeared to be AI-generated hallucinations, and therefore refused to consider them as valid legal authority.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings containing hallucinated citations. It reinforces that courts will apply a presumption of regularity to proceedings when records are missing and will actively disregard legal arguments supported by fabricated authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Criminal
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Shaker Heights Municipal Court's denial of a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty/no-contest plea.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court noted the defendant's citations appeared to be hallucinations or fabrications generated by AI services.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.