State v. Clark
2017 Ohio 8226
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Clarke was indicted in two Cuyahoga County cases alleging multiple assaults, domestic violence, kidnapping, intimidation of a witness, and endangering a child; incidents spanned April 18–28, 2016.
- Victim B.L. initially cooperated but disappeared before the first trial; a material-witness warrant and GPS monitoring followed; Clarke was later apprehended with B.L.
- On September 8, 2016, Clarke pleaded guilty in both cases to selected counts (felonious assault, domestic violence, intimidation, endangering children); remaining counts were nolled.
- During the plea colloquy Clarke twice indicated he had not had enough time with counsel but repeatedly affirmed he wished to proceed after private consultations; the court complied with Crim.R. 11(C) advisements.
- At sentencing the court refused to merge multiple counts, imposed consecutive terms across counts and cases for an aggregate 8.5-year sentence, and denied Clarke’s post‑sentence request for new counsel or additional time.
- Clarke appealed, arguing (1) plea involuntary, (2) allied-offenses merger required, (3) ineffective assistance for not seeking merger, and (4) consecutive sentences lacked required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clarke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent | Court conducted full Crim.R. 11(C) colloquy; defendant affirmed understanding and waived rights | Plea was invalid because Clarke lacked sufficient time to consult counsel before pleading | Affirmed — plea was knowing/voluntary; defendant repeatedly waived requests for more time and consulted counsel during colloquy |
| Whether Counts 1, 4, 7 in CR-16-605861-A are allied offenses requiring merger | Offenses were separate in time and harm; prosecutor and defense agreed they did not merge | Offenses should merge as allied offenses of similar import | Affirmed — no merger; offenses occurred on separate dates and produced separate harms |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not raising allied‑offenses merger | Counsel’s performance was reasonable given offenses were separate; no deficiency or prejudice | Counsel ineffective for failing to move to merge allied offenses at sentencing | Affirmed — no ineffective assistance because offenses were not allied; no prejudice shown |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed | Court made and journalized R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in entry | Consecutive terms lacked statutory findings | Affirmed — court made required findings and incorporated them into the entry (Bonnell followed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Isaac, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (trial court must ensure defendant understands plea and consequences)
- Ruff v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (tests for allied offenses: conduct, animus, import)
- Rogers v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (plain‑error standard for allied‑offense forfeiture)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (postsentence plea‑withdrawal standard)