State v. Deibel, 2011 Ohio 3520

Deibel was indicted December 17, 2009 in Allen County for weapon under disability, possession of methamphetamine, illegal assembly/possession of meth manufacture chemicals, illegal manufacture near a school with forfeiture and engaging in a corrupt activity.
On August 10, 2010, Deibel pled guilty to counts 1–3; counts 4–5 were dismissed as part of a negotiated plea.
On September 24, 2010, the trial court sentenced Deibel to 12 years in prison and ordered forfeiture of electronic equipment and the real estate where meth was manufactured.
Evidence showed an operational meth lab in the residence at 860 S. Nixon, near a daycare, with substantial precursors, equipment, and digital records supporting manufacturing activity.
The trial court found the residence to be the primary instrumentality of the offense, that the operation lasted 4–5 months, and that the property’s value and equity support forfeiture.
On appeal, Deibel challenges the forfeiture as improper, the proportionality of forfeiture, potential Eighth Amendment violation, and claims of ineffective assistance and ineffective plea with non-knowingly entered plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the real property forfeiture was proper as instrumentality	State contends the home was the instrumentality of the offense and properly forfeitable.	Deibel argues the court failed to make required findings and questions the instrumentality designation.	Forfeiture upheld; Deibel waived challenge by pleading guilty to the forfeiture specification.
Whether the forfeiture was proportionate to the offense under the Eighth Amendment	State asserts proportionality review supports forfeiture given offense gravity and community harm.	Deibel contends forfeiture may be an excessive fine under proportionality analysis.	Second and third assignments overruled; trial court's proportionality analysis supported by the record.
Whether the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment and Ohio constitutional limits	State maintains forfeiture is a lawful penalty for the offense and not an excessive fine.	Deibel asserts the governing standards for excessiveness were not met.	Forfeiture upheld; no Eighth Amendment violation found under the court’s analysis.
Whether Deibel received effective assistance of counsel and whether plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered	State argues Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance and that plea was voluntary.	Deibel claims plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered and counsel was ineffective.	Fifth and fourth assignments overruled; plea voluntary and counsel not ineffective given substantial compliance.

State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio Supreme Court 1979) (guilty plea rights and Crim.R. 11 considerations)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio Supreme Court 1990) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11)
State v. Moore, 2007-Ohio-6018 (Ohio App.3d 2007) (substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11; rights waiver)
State v. Dickens, 2006-Ohio-4920 (4th Dist. 2006) (plea waiver of statutory forfeiture analysis)
State v. Harold, 109 Ohio App.3d 87 (Ohio App. 1996) (proportionality framework for forfeiture review)
State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25 (Ohio Supreme Court 1994) (forfeiture treated as a fine for excessiveness)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (proportionality framework for fines and punishment)