State v. Collins, 2019 Ohio 3428

Shawn Collins was indicted for second-degree felony burglary and pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.
Plea and sentencing occurred April 4, 2018: seven-year prison term, mandatory three years post-release control, $1,000 restitution, costs; the court orally imposed a $10,000 fine at the hearing.
On appeal Collins argued (1) the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) so his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not raising competency concerns and for not presenting mitigating evidence.
Transcript excerpts show Collins gave some nonstandard or flippant responses (e.g., “Yewow,” “Yeep,” “10–4,” “eleven, eleven make a wish”), but largely answered “yes”/“no” when prompted and was admonished to give clear answers.
Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2); the appellate court found no sufficient indicia of incompetence and rejected both assignments of error.
The court sua sponte noticed a clerical omission: the sentencing journal entry failed to include the $10,000 fine imposed on the record, and it instructed the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to include the fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Collins)	Held
Whether the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) so plea was invalid	Court complied with Crim.R. 11 and defendants’ rights were explained; substantial compliance satisfied	The court failed to ensure Collins was capable of understanding proceedings (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)); odd responses show incompetence	Court held trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered
Whether Collins was incompetent and counsel ineffective for failing to seek competency evaluation or present mitigating evidence	No indicia of incompetence in record; counsel secured a favorable negotiated plea	Collins’ behavior at hearing showed incompetence; counsel should have sought evaluation and presented mitigating evidence; would not have pled but for counsel’s errors	Court found no sufficient indicia of incompetence; counsel’s performance not shown deficient or prejudicial given negotiated plea; ineffective-assistance claim denied
Whether the sentencing entry correctly reflects the sentence imposed	— (State does not contest correction)	Trial court imposed $10,000 fine on the record but omitted it from the journal	Appellate court ordered trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to include the $10,000 fine (clerical correction)

State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (explaining Crim.R. 11 compliance standards and substantial vs. strict compliance)
State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (plea must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (guilty plea void if not knowing and voluntary)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires competency)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (competency standard for plea and trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (application of Strickland to guilty pleas)
State v. Xie, 584 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio application of Strickland/Hill to plea cases)
State v. Berry, 650 N.E.2d 433 (when court must inquire sua sponte into competency)