State v. Crew, 2022 Ohio 752

Nathaniel Crew faced three Portage County cases arising from July–August 2020 incidents: vehicle flight/escape from a police cruiser, and multiple assaults on jail/corrections officers while incarcerated.
Charges included amended kidnapping (reduced to second-degree in plea), grand theft of a motor vehicle, assaults on peace/corrections officers, failure to comply, and escape. Several charges were dismissed under the plea deal.
Crew was evaluated twice for competency; both evaluations found him competent; evaluators noted malingering concerns.
Crew entered guilty pleas as part of a plea agreement; the trial court found the pleas knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and imposed consecutive sentences under the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentence framework.
On appeal Crew raised three assignments: (1) kidnapping plea lacked factual support/merger, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to dismiss and failure to assert insanity), and (3) Reagan Tokes indefinite sentencing is unconstitutional.
The Eleventh District consolidated the appeals and affirmed the trial court, holding the challenges meritless or not ripe for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crew)	Held
Validity of kidnapping plea / merger / sufficiency	State: Crew's knowing, voluntary guilty plea waives factual-sufficiency and merger challenges	Crew: facts do not show removal/intent to move officer; kidnapping merges with assault	Court: Guilty plea precludes challenge; no merger issue because only one allied conviction entered; assignment overruled
Ineffective assistance of counsel (motion to dismiss; insanity plea)	State: Counsel's choices were reasonable; a pretrial sufficiency motion would be futile; record lacks basis for insanity plea (malingering noted)	Crew: Counsel should have moved to dismiss kidnapping and pled not guilty by reason of insanity	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claims fail
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing	State: Challenge is not ripe because it's uncertain whether release date will exceed the minimum term	Crew: R.C. 2967.271 is unconstitutional	Court: Challenge not ripe for review; appeal on this ground denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (discusses allied-offenses/merger principles)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (standards for counsel performance and prejudice)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (addresses analysis when one Strickland prong is not met)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (presumption that licensed attorneys are competent)
State v. Siders, 78 Ohio App.3d 699 (guilty plea precludes appeals contesting facts supporting conviction)
State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 568 (ripeness/justiciability principles)
State ex rel. Jones v. Husted, 149 Ohio St.3d 110 (ripeness/justiciability principles)
State v. Spikes, 129 Ohio App.3d 142 (constitutional questions not ripe until decision becomes necessary)