Love v. Sloan, 3:18-cv-02640

Background

Petitioner Mendo Love pleaded guilty (Feb. 11, 2013) to three counts of aggravated possession of drugs in Erie County, Ohio, pursuant to a plea that stated an "Agreed 'Recommended' Sentence: Parties agree to 3yr prison sentence," but acknowledged the court was not bound by any recommendation.
Love failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing; a warrant issued and he was arrested in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2016 and returned to Ohio for sentencing on Feb. 25, 2016.
The trial court sentenced Love to 30 months on each count, with two counts concurrent and the third consecutive, for a total of 5 years.
Love pursued a delayed appeal; the Ohio Court of Appeals, after Anders review, affirmed the judgment (June 30, 2017); Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
Love filed postconviction motions and appeals for jail-time credit for time served in Allegheny County, which the state courts denied as the Pennsylvania custody was for unrelated charges; Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
Love filed a federal habeas petition raising six grounds: plea‑agreement breach, ineffective assistance at sentencing, failure to advise of right to withdraw plea pre‑sentence, allied‑offense/consecutive sentencing errors, abuse of discretion under Ohio sentencing law, and denial of additional jail‑time credit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of plea agreement (Ground 1)	Love: plea promised a 3‑year sentence; court breached plea by imposing 5 years	State: plea reflected a recommendation; court warned Love it was not bound by recommendation	Court: Recommendation was not a binding promise; no due‑process violation; Ground 1 denied
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing (Ground 2)	Love: counsel failed to object when court did not honor plea	State: counsel reasonably advocated mitigation and could not force judge to follow recommendation	Court: Strickland standard applied; no deficient performance or prejudice; Ground 2 denied
Failure to advise of right to withdraw plea before sentencing (Ground 3)	Love: trial court violated Ohio Crim. R. 50 and plain/error rules by not advising he could withdraw plea	State: Ohio rules do not create federal constitutional right; Love conceded he would not have withdrawn plea	Court: State‑law rule claim not cognizable on habeas; no plain‑error showing; Ground 3 not cognizable
Allied‑offense / consecutive sentences (Ground 4)	Love: counts were allied (same drug family); consecutive sentences unlawful	State: counts involved different substances/forms; Ohio law allows separate convictions and consecutive sentencing	Court: State‑law challenge not cognizable; on Double Jeopardy review state court reasoned distinctions were sufficient; Ground 4 denied
Abuse of discretion under R.C. 2953.08 (Ground 5)	Love: trial court’s consecutive‑sentence findings contradicted the record	State: sentencing‑law claim is state‑law issue not cognizable on federal habeas	Court: Ground 5 not cognizable (state sentencing discretionary issue)
Jail‑time credit for Pennsylvania custody (Ground 6)	Love: entitled to credit for days held in Allegheny County on Erie fugitive warrant	State: Pennsylvania custody was for unrelated charges; no credit under Ohio law for unrelated detentions	Court: Ohio Court of Appeals’ conclusion reasonable; Ground 6 denied

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (federal habeas standard for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑part standard)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state court decisions; "fair‑minded jurists" standard)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas limited to federal constitutional claims)
Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (federal courts bound by state court's interpretation of state law)
Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (clear‑and‑convincing evidence rule for challenging state‑court factual findings)
Carwile v. Smith, 874 F.2d 382 (6th Cir.) (recommendation vs. binding promise; plea‑recommendation expectations)