State v. Casto, 2021 Ohio 2328

Jason Casto was charged in 2019 with aggravated possession of drugs while on community control for a 2018 offense; he had prior prison terms and prior community-control status.
On October 30, 2019, Casto pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that waived a presentence investigation and was silent as to sentencing; he agreed to admit community-control violations and pay fees.
At the plea hearing the court informed Casto that it could impose consecutive sentences; Casto affirmed his understanding in the record.
At sentencing the court revoked community control on the 2018 case (imposed the previously-ordered 12-month term) and sentenced Casto to 12 months on the 2019 count, ordered consecutively for a 24-month aggregate.
Casto appealed, arguing (1) the court violated the plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences (he contended counsel promised concurrent sentences and the State promised a 14-month result) and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move to withdraw the plea.
The appellate court held the trial court was not bound by any sentencing term because the plea agreement was silent and the court had not participated in plea negotiations; it also held counsel was not ineffective because any objection or motion would have lacked merit and many of Casto’s claims relied on matters outside the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Casto)	Held
Whether the trial court breached the plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences	Plea agreement was silent on sentence; court never agreed to a term and is not bound by negotiations it did not join	Counsel promised concurrent sentences and State promised a 14‑month aggregate; court’s consecutive order violated the plea	No breach: agreement silent, court warned defendant about consecutive terms and was not part of plea negotiations; sentences lawful
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting or moving to withdraw the plea after sentencing	Any objection/motion would be meritless because no breach occurred; claims relying on out‑of‑record affidavits are unreviewable on direct appeal	Counsel failed to protect Casto’s plea terms (concurrent/14 months) and should have sought withdrawal	Not ineffective: Strickland/Bradley standard not met; counsel’s inaction would not have changed outcome and claims largely rest on matters outside the record

State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review limited to the trial-court record)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (trial court not bound by plea agreement absent court involvement)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Gilroy, 195 Ohio App.3d 173 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (defendant’s breach can relieve court of plea promise)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1992) (guilty plea waives ineffective-assistance claims except to extent plea was unknowing/unvoluntary)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (prejudice requirement under Strickland)