State v. Hawkins, 2015 Ohio 3140

Fred Hawkins was indicted in five separate Cuyahoga County cases involving multiple breaking-and-entering and drug-possession offenses; he pleaded guilty to amended counts in all five cases.
After pleas, the court ordered a presentence investigation and a psychiatric mitigation evaluation that diagnosed bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and psychotic symptoms (hallucinations/paranoid delusions).
Sentencing produced individual prison terms (several one-year terms and a six-month term); one one-year term was ordered consecutive to another, resulting in an aggregate two-year term; two other cases were ordered concurrent.
The court did not make or incorporate on the record specific findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) when imposing consecutive sentences.
The court also failed to inform Hawkins at sentencing of the period of postrelease control applicable to his fifth-degree felony convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/pursue an insanity defense before pleas	State: No evidence counsel’s performance was deficient or that an insanity defense would have likely succeeded	Hawkins: Counsel should have sought sanity evaluations pre-plea given later psychiatric diagnoses	Court: Overruled — Hawkins offered no evidence showing a viable insanity defense, so no proven deficient performance or prejudice
Whether trial court erred by failing to make and journalize required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences	State: The court sufficiently stated reasons at sentencing	Hawkins: Court did not state/find one of the statutory (a)-(c) factors required to impose consecutive terms	Court: Reversed — court’s remarks addressed necessity and proportionality but did not make the required (a)/(b)/(c) findings; remanded for resentencing to make and journalize findings
Whether court properly informed defendant of postrelease control	State: ? (no defense)	Hawkins: Court failed to notify him of up to three years of postrelease control for fifth-degree felonies	Court: Reversed — postrelease control was not properly imposed or explained; remanded for proper imposition/information

State v. Decker, 28 Ohio St.3d 137 (discusses counsel’s duty regarding competency/insanity issues)
State v. Brown, 84 Ohio App.3d 414 (examines when failure to pursue insanity defense constitutes deficient performance)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requires on-the-record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporation into sentencing entry)