State v. Frett, 2012 Ohio 3363

Frett pleaded guilty in CR-552762 to rape of a victim under 13 and in CR-544745 to two counts of rape and two counts of abduction with sexual motivation; 35 counts were nolled and CR-543131 claims dismissed under the plea agreement.
Victim in CR-552762 was under 13 and later bore Frett’s child when she was 14; two other victims were under 13 during the period alleged.
Trial court merged abduction with corresponding rape counts and imposed consecutive 11-year terms, later identified as error because offenses occurred before the 2011 sentencing amendments.
Frett challenged counsel replacement, claimed ineffective assistance, and argued the plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered; he also challenged indictment vagueness and his competency due to bipolar disorder.
Court acknowledged Frett’s plea waives pre-plea nonjurisdictional errors and that the plea colloquy was thorough; sentenced amended to comply with pre-2011 maximums; case remanded for sentencing entry correction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Frett waive pre-plea issues by pleading guilty?	Frett contends trial court erred by not replacing counsel; pleaded guilty after denial.	Frett argues for preservation of issues and potential ineffective assistance.	Waived; guilty plea forecloses nonjurisdictional pre-plea errors.
Was Frett's guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered?	Colloquy properly informed Frett of rights and penalties.	Indictment vagueness and alleged coercion undermined voluntariness.	Knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered; no reversible error.
Was Frett's ineffective assistance claim viable for failing to challenge the indictment or competency?	Counsel’s performance deficient for not questioning competency.	No prejudice shown; bipolar diagnosis not proves incompetence.	No prejudice; claim overruled.
Was the sentencing consistent with the law in effect at the time of offenses?	Sentences should reflect pre-amendment maximums.	No issue if the court correctly stated penalties.	Sentence must be reduced to 10 years per count; remanded for sentencing entry correction.
Did the indictment's date range affect validity or plea validity?	Dates could be broader; no impact on plea.	Indictment sufficient; vagueness not dispositive after guilty plea.	Indictment sufficient; plea valid.

State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (1992) (guilty plea waives prior nonjurisdictional defects; standard on plea withdrawal)
State v. Martin, 2011-Ohio-222 (2011) (waiver of nonjurisdictional errors upon guilty plea)
State v. Ferrell, 2010-Ohio-1201 (2010) (indictments in child sexual abuse need not specify exact dates if time frame established)
State v. Yaacov, 2006-Ohio-5321 (2006) (indictments in sex offenses tolerating vague dates within time frame)
State v. Dumas, 2012-Ohio-91 (2012) (assessing competency and reliance on mental health treatment for criminal responsibility)
State v. Hicks, 1982 WL 4220 (1982) (competency standards and burden of showing impairment)
State v. West, 2007-Ohio-5240 (2007) (indictment validity when dates extend before victim’s 13th birthday)