State v. Ducker, 2013 Ohio 3658

James N. Ducker was indicted on multiple sex-related felonies (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material; unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; disseminating material harmful to juveniles) and later indicted for tampering with evidence committed while on bond.
He changed counsel during pretrial, was free on bond until bond was revoked after the tampering charge; competency was evaluated and he was found competent.
On June 20, 2012 Ducker pled guilty to the charges and on June 22–28, 2012 the trial court imposed an aggregate eight-year prison term and designated him a Tier II sexual offender.
Sentence breakdown: 4 years (illegal use of a minor), 24 months (unlawful sexual conduct), 12 months (disseminating harmful material, concurrent), and 24 months (tampering with evidence); Counts I and II served consecutively and consecutive to the tampering count.
Ducker filed a delayed appeal raising (1) that the trial court failed to adequately consider statutory sentencing factors and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Fifth District affirmed: it rejected both assignments of error, holding there was no plain error in sentencing within the statutory range and no showing of ineffective assistance under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by failing to consider statutory sentencing factors and make required findings	State: sentence was within statutory range and trial court complied with applicable law	Ducker: court did not adequately consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and failed to make required findings for the 24-month term/consecutive status	Affirmed: no plain error; sentence within statutory range; trial court did not abuse discretion (consecutive findings addressed in related case)
Whether Ducker received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing	State: counsel's choices were within professional range; no prejudice shown	Ducker: counsel failed to request PSI, file sentencing memorandum, or present mitigating evidence	Affirmed: Strickland two-prong test not satisfied; appellant failed to show reasonable probability of different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory range without mandatory findings)
Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1973) (abuse of discretion standards where sentence shocks judicial conscience)
Cincinnati v. Clardy, 57 Ohio App.2d 153 (1st Dist. 1978) (appellate review where trial court fails to consider statutory sentencing factors)