State v. Akins, 2013 Ohio 5023

Defendant Jermaine Akins pleaded guilty in three cases to attempted rape, robbery, and failure to notify a change of address; sentences: 7 years (attempted rape), 12 months (robbery), 6 months (address) to run concurrently.
After plea, court ordered a psychiatric clinic evaluation and scheduled sentencing; two prior dates were rescheduled by the court.
Defense counsel failed to appear at the December 3, 2012 sentencing; court criticized counsel and reset sentencing to December 6, 2012.
At sentencing the prosecutor emphasized defendant’s criminal history and the victim’s young age, suggesting a harsher penalty would apply if the victim had been younger.
Akins appealed alleging (1) ineffective assistance because counsel missed sentencing, (2) prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing, and (3) abuse of discretion / failure to consider mitigating factors from the psychiatric report.
The appellate court affirmed, finding no prejudice from counsel’s absence, no prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, and no statutory basis to overturn a within-range sentence for being too severe.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to appear at scheduled sentencing	State: sentencing proceeded properly; no reversible error	Akins: counsel’s absence was deficient and likely led to a harsher sentence	Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown; sentence unaffected by absence
Prosecutorial misconduct by misstating victim age and suggesting harsher penalty	State: remarks summarized evidence and highlighted seriousness; permissible	Akins: prosecutor misstated age and implied exposure to greater penalty improperly	Denied — court cautioned prosecutor, ignored improper suggestion, and did not impose sentence as for rape
Whether prosecutor’s age comment was impermissible	State: victim age is relevant to seriousness	Akins: misstatement of age and penalty exposure was improper	Denied — age relevant under R.C. 2929.12(B); no prejudice shown
Abuse of discretion / failure to consider mitigating factors from psychiatric report	State: court considered statutory factors and acted within discretion	Akins: court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation, producing excessive sentence	Denied — sentence within statutory range; appellate review limited to whether sentence is contrary to law, not weight of factors

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Lynch, 98 Ohio St.3d 514 (2003) (prosecutorial-misconduct review requires showing remarks were improper and prejudicial)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (sentence outside statutory range is contrary to law)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (no constitutional right to appellate review of sentence severity)
State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 (trial court’s failure to make statutorily required findings is contrary to law)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (no right to object to a particular sentencing result)
Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (severity within statutory limits is not a basis for relief on direct appeal)
Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534 (no constitutional right to appellate review of sentence)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (limitations on post-conviction review of sentencing outcomes)