State v. Fleming
2022 Ohio 740
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- 2019 indictment charged Fleming with ten felonies; plea agreement in April 2021 resolved most counts.
- Fleming agreed to plead guilty to count 10 (aggravated robbery) with a firearm specification; parties jointly recommended 3 years on count 10 plus consecutive 3 years on the firearm spec (total 6 years); other counts dismissed except count 4.
- Count 4 (having weapons while under a disability) had been severed and proceeded the next day; Fleming pleaded guilty to count 4, exposure 9–36 months.
- The court imposed 2 years on count 4, consecutive to the agreed 6 years, for an aggregate 8-year term.
- On appeal Fleming contended (1) his pleas were unknowing/involuntary, (2) counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance, (3) the two offenses should have merged as allied offenses, and (4) the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea voluntariness (Crim.R. 11) | State: court substantially complied; plea was voluntary | Fleming: confused about count 4; plea unknowing/involuntary | Court: substantial compliance; off‑record consultation cured confusion; plea knowing and voluntary |
| Ineffective assistance for not requesting continuance | State: counsel acted reasonably; Fleming consulted counsel off‑record and affirmed plea | Fleming: counsel should have asked for continuance to resolve confusion about count 4 | Court: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Merger of aggravated robbery and weapons-under-disability | State: offenses are dissimilar in import and separate punishments allowed | Fleming: offenses should merge as allied offenses of similar import | Court: offenses are dissimilar; no merger required |
| Consecutive sentences | State: court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings based on history, outstanding warrant, shooting victim | Fleming: concurrent sentences would suffice given background and mental‑health issues | Court: record supports findings (public safety, criminal history, shooting); consecutive sentences proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Crim.R. 11 substantial‑compliance standard and prejudice requirement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland standards)
- Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (three‑question test for allied offenses of similar import)
- Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (requirements for judicial findings before imposing consecutive sentences)