Croft v. Lindgren
2013 Ohio 3161
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Croft was indicted in 2009 on two counts of violating a protection order, charged as felonies of the third degree because the offenses allegedly occurred while Croft committed a felony (menacing by stalking), though he was not separately charged with menacing by stalking.
- Croft retained Lindgren to represent him; in April 2009 Croft pled guilty and was sentenced to two concurrent three-year terms.
- On August 13, 2010, Croft, through another attorney, moved to withdraw his pleas, arguing Lindgren improperly advised him and that the enhancement violated Due Process and Double Jeopardy; the court later journalized an entry permitting withdrawal of the pleas.
- Croft re-pleaded under the same indictment with the offenses amended to felonies of the fifth degree and was sentenced to 180 days (count 1) and 12 months (count 2), concurrent, with credit for time served.
- In March 2011, Croft sued Lindgren for legal malpractice and Lindgren counterclaimed for unpaid fees; the trial court granted summary judgment for Lindgren on both claims.
- On appeal, the First District affirmed, holding Lindgren did not breach any duty and that Croft’s failure to raise an allied-offenses argument did not establish malpractice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lindgren's failure to raise allied-offenses under RC 2941.25 was legal malpractice. | Croft argues Lindgren breached his duty by not raising the allied-offenses issue. | Lindgren contends there was no duty to raise the issue given Croft wasn't charged with menacing separately and the offenses did not ally. | No malpractice; no duty to raise allied-offenses; summons affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri, 70 Ohio St.3d 587 (1994) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review applied on appeal)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (negligent representation elements; duty, breach, causation, damages)
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (1999) (allied-offenses test before Cabrales; abstract comparison of elements)
- State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (2008) (allied-offenses test; not required to align elements exactly; if not identical, may not be allied)
- Jorg v. Cincinnati Black United Front, 153 Ohio App.3d 258 (2003) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)