State v. Blackman, 2017 Ohio 6889

Defendant Wayne Blackman pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping (Count 3, as amended), felonious assault (Count 4), and obstructing official business (Count 9); remaining counts were dismissed.
Trial court sentenced Blackman to concurrent prison terms: five years on Counts 3 and 4, and 12 months on Count 9.
At the plea hearing the plea agreement (which dismissed remaining counts) was placed on the record; no specific sentence promise was stated then.
At sentencing the court referenced an off-the-record “gentleman’s agreement” discussed in chambers suggesting a potential sentence of five years or less and later said it did not feel bound by that limit.
The court gave Blackman the opportunity to withdraw his plea after revealing the off-the-record discussion; Blackman declined and sentencing proceeded.
Blackman appealed, raising three claims: Rule 11(F) plea-form deficiency, ineffective assistance for failing to preserve the alleged promise, and failure to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 sentencing factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crim.R. 11(F) was violated because a negotiated plea promise about sentencing wasn’t stated on the record at plea	State: plea agreement as to counts was stated on record; no binding sentence promise was made by the state	Blackman: a sentence-related promise (five years or less) was made off the record and thus Rule 11(F) was violated	Court: No reversible Rule 11(F) violation; plea agreement as to counts was stated and any sentencing discussion was not a binding plea promise that prejudiced defendant
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve the off-the-record sentencing promise	State: no prejudice—court later put agreement on record at sentencing and defendant received five-year total	Blackman: counsel should have preserved the alleged promise to ensure enforcement or withdrawal option	Court: No ineffective assistance; defendant suffered no prejudice and obtained the sentence within the discussed range
Whether the trial court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State: court adequately considered factors (PSI, arguments, journal entry stating consideration)	Blackman: court did not properly consider statutory factors before imposing prison sentence	Court: No error; consideration may be presumed and the sentencing entry plus record show required factors were considered

Mathews v. State, 8 Ohio App.3d 145 (10th Dist.) (discusses limits of plea bargaining and sentencing promises)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard for ineffective assistance analysis)
State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (Ohio discussion of ineffective-assistance burdens and standards)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (trial court not required to articulate on-the-record every R.C. 2929.12 factor)