State v. Davis, 2014 Ohio 5371

Defendant Joseph B. Davis was indicted in multiple Scioto County cases for manufacturing methamphetamine near a juvenile, attempted burglary, and possession of chemicals used to make meth; various other counts were dismissed as part of a plea deal.
Davis entered a negotiated plea to three felonies in return for an agreed aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment (6 years mandatory), with the parties and defense counsel acknowledging the sentence would run consecutively.
At the plea/sentencing hearing the court engaged in a colloquy confirming Davis’s waiver of rights and that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the court then imposed the agreed consecutive sentences but did not recite the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Davis appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without required statutory findings, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel first contacted Davis at the plea hearing and failed to investigate, and (3) judicial coercion rendered the plea involuntary.
The appellate court consolidated the appeals and affirmed, holding the consecutive sentences were not reviewable because Davis and the prosecution jointly recommended them and Davis stipulated to consecutive terms, and rejecting the ineffective-assistance and coercion claims on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences may be reviewed where the plea agreement included consecutive terms	State: Jointly recommended consecutive sentence bars appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) if sentence is authorized by law	Davis: Trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, so consecutive sentences are contrary to law	Court: Davis expressly stipulated to consecutive sentences at plea; under Porterfield and related authority joint recommendation/stipulation precludes review, so assignment overruled
Whether Davis received ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Counsel’s performance was not shown deficient on the record; Davis cannot add new evidence on appeal	Davis: Counsel first contacted him at plea hearing and failed to investigate, causing prejudice	Court: Record does not support Davis’s factual assertions; counsel was appointed less than a month before plea; defendant satisfied with counsel at hearing; claim fails under Strickland
Whether the trial judge coerced the plea, rendering it involuntary	State: Colloquy and written waivers show plea was knowing and voluntary despite one remark by the judge	Davis: Judge’s comment about plea-offer practice coerced him into accepting the deal	Court: Isolated comment did not render plea involuntary; no evidence judge’s participation created reasonable belief that trial would be futile or biased; plea voluntary

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (a jointly recommended sentence is "authorized by law" only if it complies with all mandatory sentencing provisions)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 829 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2005) (defendant stipulation to consecutive terms relieves court of needing to independently justify them)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state R.C. 2929.14(C) findings on the record and incorporate them in the judgment entry when imposing consecutive sentences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (pleas must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered)