State v. Driffin
2022 Ohio 804
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- James Driffin pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of abduction, and one count of having weapons while under disability. He was sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Law to an aggregate prison term described as 10.5 years, including indefinite terms for the aggravated-robbery counts.
- On direct appeal, appellate counsel argued only that Driffin's pleas were involuntary; this court affirmed his convictions and sentences.
- Driffin timely filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen, arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law’s indefinite-sentencing scheme.
- The State responded that (1) at sentencing and on appeal Driffin accepted application of Reagan Tokes (to potentially reduce minimums), (2) no appellate court had deemed the statute unconstitutional when briefs were due, and (3) Driffin did not object at trial (forfeiting the issue).
- The court applied the two-step App.R. 26(B)/Strickland framework, found no colorable ineffective-assistance claim given then-existing authority and Driffin’s forfeiture, and denied the application. The opinion notes this court’s en banc Delvallie decision upholding Reagan Tokes; Judge Groves concurred in the result but noted she would find the law unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the Reagan Tokes Law as unconstitutional | Driffin: counsel should have raised a constitutional challenge to the indefinite-sentencing scheme | State: no viable claim at the time (courts upheld scheme or deemed issue waived/not ripe); Driffin didn’t object at sentencing, so issue forfeited | Denied — no colorable ineffective-assistance claim; prevailing precedent and forfeiture meant no reasonable probability of success |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (appellate ineffective-assistance standard and reopening practice)
- State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (App.R. 26(B) colorable-claim threshold discussion)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (2014) (plain-error review of forfeited constitutional claims)
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (manifest miscarriage of justice/forfeiture standard)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (failure to raise objection at trial forfeits later review)