State v. Collier
2020 Ohio 3033
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Collier was indicted on multiple counts arising from unauthorized withdrawals while office manager for Taylored Construction Services (one aggravated theft, telecommunications fraud, 32 forgeries, 54 money-laundering counts across co-defendant indictment).
- She pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to: 1 aggravated theft, 7 forgeries, and 2 money-laundering counts; remaining counts nolled; restitution of $210,000 agreed.
- At plea colloquy the prosecutor stated no promises were made regarding any specific sentence and that sentencing was left to the court’s discretion.
- At sentencing the state recommended a six-year term; the court imposed concurrent terms on theft and forgery but ordered the two money-laundering terms consecutive to theft, for a total of 72 months, plus restitution.
- Collier appealed, raising (1) breach of plea agreement/plain error and ineffective assistance, (2) improper imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), (3) allied-offense merger of theft and money laundering and ineffective assistance, and (4) sentence not supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the state breach plea agreement by recommending a six-year sentence (and was counsel ineffective for not objecting)? | State: prosecutor’s statement only said no promise of a specific sentence and left sentencing to the court; no binding promise not to recommend. | Collier: prosecutor’s remark amounted to an agreement that state would not make sentencing recommendation; recommending six years breached plea; counsel ineffective for failing to object. | No breach; prosecutor did not promise silence. Even if breach, Collier showed no prejudice (plain-error standard); ineffective-assistance claim fails. |
| 2. Did the court err in imposing consecutive sentences without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings? | State: trial court made the necessary findings and exercised discretion. | Collier: court failed to make all three statutory findings required to impose consecutive terms. | The court made the first two findings (necessity and proportionality) but did not make one of the required subsection (a)-(c) findings on the record; consecutive sentences vacated and remanded for proper findings. |
| 3. Are aggravated theft and money laundering allied offenses requiring merger (and was counsel ineffective for not arguing merger)? | State: alleged separate conduct — theft (unauthorized withdrawals) and later use/transfer of proceeds (laundering) — so offenses are dissimilar/separate in conduct and animus. | Collier: same conduct (taking and depositing/using funds) constituted both theft and laundering and thus should merge. | No plain error; record supports separate conduct allegation, so offenses do not merge; ineffective-assistance claim fails because no prejudice. |
| 4. Is Collier’s sentence unsupported by the record? | State: sentencing court considered record, victim impact, PSI, and sentencing factors. | Collier: sentence (including consecutive terms) not supported by record. | Because consecutive sentences were vacated for lack of third statutory finding, related challenge is remanded; other convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutor promises that induce a plea must be honored)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (forfeiture and plain-error review when failure to object)
- State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (Ohio allied-offenses test: import, conduct, animus)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make/contemporaneously state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error standard and preservation issues in sentencing review)