State v. Hale, 2014 Ohio 5028

Shawn M. Hale was indicted on multiple aggravated drug‑trafficking counts and one count of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity (R.C. 2923.32); he pleaded guilty to the Pattern charge and the state dismissed the rest.
Plea and sentencing were continued several times at defense request; a presentence investigation (PSI) was ordered and completed before sentencing.
Hale was sentenced to a five‑year prison term (within the statutory range for a first‑degree felony) and was advised of five years of mandatory post‑release control.
On appeal Hale raised four assignments of error claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to review PSI, coercive plea advice about a six‑month window, failure to advise about medication when waiving competency to plead) and that the sentence was an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court refused to consider many of Hale’s factual assertions because they were not part of the trial record or transcripts on appeal, presumed regularity where the record was incomplete, and found no prejudice or legal error in sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for denying Hale opportunity to review the PSI	State: record does not show denial; proceedings regular	Hale: counsel prevented him from reviewing PSI and correcting errors	Court: not considering out‑of‑record assertions; no prejudice shown; assignment overruled
Whether counsel coerced plea by saying case must resolve within six months	State: no record support for coercion	Hale: counsel told him plea was only option due to time constraint	Court: allegations outside record; cannot consider; assignment overruled
Whether counsel failed to advise re: medication when court asked about intoxication	State: no record evidence of failure	Hale: counsel misadvised about including prescribed meds in competence question	Court: claims not in record; unable to review; assignment overruled
Whether the imposed five‑year sentence was an abuse of discretion / contrary to law	State: sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and PSI	Hale: sentence excessive/abusive (relies on out‑of‑record arguments)	Court: sentence within statutory range, court considered required factors, record not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion found; assignment overruled

State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (appellate courts cannot consider new matter not part of trial record)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (limitations on adding evidence outside record on appeal)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two‑step appellate review of felony sentences post‑Foster)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severed mandatory judicial fact‑finding provisions of sentencing statutes)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requirements for findings to impose consecutive sentences; no need to state reasons)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears duty to provide transcripts; omission leads to presumption of regularity)
Hoag v. State, 125 Ohio St.3d 49 (2010) (presumption of regularity when transcript omitted on appeal)