State v. Davis, 2017 Ohio 7323

Roderick Davis was indicted on rape (R.C. 2907.02), gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05), and kidnapping with a sexual-motivation specification (R.C. 2905.01) based on an incident involving a 10-year-old.
Defense counsel was replaced after initial appointed counsel sought to withdraw; Davis later pleaded guilty to an amended single count of kidnapping without the sexual-motivation specification.
In exchange for the guilty plea, the state nolled the remaining sexual-offense counts; the amended kidnapping charge carried no sexual-offender registration requirement but carried a presumptive prison term.
The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, accepted the plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and ordered a presentence investigation.
At sentencing the court imposed seven years’ imprisonment, finding Davis had not overcome the presumption of prison; an exchange occurred on the record about plea negotiations and why Davis pleaded to kidnapping rather than a sexually-related felony.
Davis appealed, asserting (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for allegedly failing to advise him properly about kidnapping elements and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by inquiring into pretrial plea negotiations at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective in advising about kidnapping, rendering plea involuntary?	State: Plea was knowing, voluntary; record shows counsel negotiated to avoid sexual-offender registration and Davis knowingly accepted kidnapping plea.	Davis: Counsel failed to properly advise elements of kidnapping; but for that, he likely would not have pleaded guilty.	Rejected — no deficient performance shown; plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; defendant benefitted from avoiding registration and greater exposure.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by inquiring into plea negotiations at sentencing?	State: Judge’s post-plea inquiry was explanatory for family and did not participate in negotiations or coerce plea or sentence.	Davis: Court’s inquiry into plea negotiations was improper and analogous to concerns in Jabbaar.	Rejected — isolated, post-plea inquiry for explanation did not amount to participation in negotiations or make plea involuntary; no sentencing impropriety shown.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Jabbaar, 991 N.E.2d 290 (Ohio 2013) (court must view judge’s plea-related comments in context to determine voluntariness)