State v. Darling
2017 Ohio 7603
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In January 2016 Tevaughn Darling was reindicted on heroin-trafficking and related charges and, represented by a public defender at plea, pleaded guilty in April 2016 to conspiracy, six trafficking counts (one with a one-year firearm spec), weapons-under-disability, possession of criminal tools, and tampering with evidence.
- The plea was part of a "package deal" where two co-defendants (his girlfriend and the mother of his child) would plead to misdemeanors to avoid felonies if Darling pleaded guilty.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 14-year prison sentence: mandatory terms for trafficking, a mandatory consecutive term for the firearm specification, and additional discretionary consecutive terms; it imposed mandatory statutory fines on five second-degree trafficking counts totaling $37,500 and court costs.
- Darling appealed, raising six assignments of error: improper state interference with retained counsel/choice of counsel; ineffective assistance/abandonment; trial court’s failure to advise right to testify; plea involuntariness due to package deal coercion; failure to make statutory consecutive-sentencing findings; and failure to consider ability to pay fines/costs.
- The court concluded Darling waived pre-plea nonjurisdictional claims by pleading guilty, found the Crim.R. 11 colloquy adequate (including advisement about remaining silent/testifying), upheld the voluntariness of the package-deal plea, found the court made the consecutive-sentence findings on the record but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate those findings, and upheld imposition of mandatory fines/costs given Darling did not file an affidavit of indigency or object at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Plaintiff) | Darling's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the state's motion to disqualify counsel deprive Darling of his right to counsel of choice? | Motion to disqualify was proper; any withdrawal of retained counsel did not implicate rights because withdrawal was voluntary and occurred pre-hearing. | State intimidated retained counsel causing withdrawal, violating right to choice of counsel. | Waived by guilty plea; even on merits no Sixth Amendment violation because counsel voluntarily withdrew before resolution of conflict motion. |
| 2. Was Darling denied effective assistance/abandoned by counsel who withdrew? | No; trial counsel withdrawal did not affect the assistance at the time of plea and claims are nonjurisdictional and waived by plea. | Withdrawal amounted to abandonment and ineffective assistance. | Waived by guilty plea; no review of pre-plea counsel conduct absent challenge to plea validity. |
| 3. Did the court fail to advise Darling of his right to testify, rendering plea invalid under Crim.R. 11? | Colloquy adequately informed Darling of right to remain silent and that no one could comment if he did not testify. | Court failed to specifically advise of right to testify, so plea involuntary. | Overruled — Crim.R.11 does not require specific advisement of right to testify; court substantially complied. |
| 4. Was plea involuntary/coerced because of a package-deal conditioned on co-defendants’ pleas? | Package deals are permissible; Crim.R.11 voluntariness analysis protects against coercion; Darling had competent counsel and safeguards. | Plea coerced because state indicted co-defendants to pressure Darling into pleading. | Overruled — package deal not per se coercive; record shows plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. |
| 5. Did the trial court fail to make statutory findings required for consecutive sentences? | Court made required findings on the record at sentencing; omission from journal entry is clerical and remediable. | Sentencing entry lacks required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings, so consecutive sentences invalid. | Overruled as to substance; findings were made on the record. Case remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate findings per Bonnell. |
| 6. Did the court err by imposing mandatory fines and costs without considering ability to pay? | Mandatory fines required under R.C.2929.18(B)(1) unless defendant files affidavit of indigency prior to sentencing; Darling did not do so and did not object. Court costs are routinely assessed and discretionary waiver not required. | Court failed to consider present/future ability to pay before imposing fines and costs. | Overruled — Darling waived challenge by not filing affidavit or objecting; mandatory fines properly imposed; court costs within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1973) (guilty plea waives pre-plea nonjurisdictional constitutional claims)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them into the entry; clerical omission may be corrected by nunc pro tunc)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (no constitutional right to plea bargaining)
- Gipson v. Ohio, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1998) (mandatory drug-fine requirement and effect of failing to file affidavit of indigency)