State v. Asadi-Ousley, 2012 Ohio 106

Asadi-Ousley was indicted in three separate cases charging burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, theft and related weapon specifications, with initial not guilty pleas.
The court ordered competency and sanity evaluations; reports found him incompetent to stand trial at the time, and restoration was attempted.
Defendant and State later stipulated to December 2010 competency findings, rendering him competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the acts.
On February 7, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, the State amended several counts and dismissed others; Asadi-Ousley pled guilty to the amended counts.
Sentences were imposed concurrently: 18 months on one count, five years on others, totaling six years in prison with five years postrelease control, plus restitution.
The court later remanded to address court costs in light of a failure to address costs at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency hearing before pleas	Competency was stipulated; no hearing required.	Plea should not be accepted without an explicit competency determination.	First assignment overruled; stipulation sufficed.
Informing the defendant of plea effect	Court complied with Crim.R. 11 requirements through sufficient colloquy.	Court failed to inform that a plea is a complete admission of guilt.	Second assignment overruled; failure deemed nonprejudicial under Griggs framework.
Sentence within statutory limits and statutory criteria	Trial court properly considered factors; sentence not contrary to law.	Court failed to properly apply Kalish standards and statutory criteria.	Third assignment overruled; sentence not contrary to law and not an abuse of discretion.
Open-court assessment of court costs	Costs could be assessed in the judgment; no need for in-court waiver.	Costs must be addressed at sentencing; remand for waiver procedure required.	Fourth assignment sustained; remand for limited hearing on costs.

State v. Rubenstein, 40 Ohio App.3d 57 (8th Cir.1987) (due process when defendant lacks competence to stand trial)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (informing the defendant of the effect of a guilty plea; nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11(C) requirements; prejudice standard)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance; prejudice analysis)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11; prejudice aspect)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (Kalish framework: appellate review for compliance with sentencing statutes and abuse-of-discretion after Foster)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (elimination of mandatory judicial fact-finding in sentencing; impact on Kalish framework)