2021 Ohio 2332
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Grand jury indicted Anthony Jordan on multiple drug and weapons counts after a search of his home found 183 g cocaine, 1,447.2 g marijuana, two handguns, digital scales, multiple cell phones, and large amounts of cash; forfeiture specifications covered cash, two firearms, and two vehicles.
- Jordan filed, then withdrew, a motion to suppress; he accepted a plea agreement pleading guilty to reduced counts: cocaine possession (3rd), having weapons while under disability (3rd), marijuana possession (3rd), and possession of criminal tools (5th), and agreed to forfeiture; trafficking counts and firearm/major-drug specifications were dismissed.
- Plea agreement contemplated a joint sentencing recommendation of at least six years; trial court accepted the plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms totaling nine years (36, 36, 24, and 12 months), citing organized criminal activity, lack of remorse, high risk score, extensive criminal history, and facts supporting resale (quantities, scales, trash pulls, firearms).
- Jordan appealed raising three assignments: (1) plea invalid under Crim.R. 11, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) sentence contrary to law (especially consecutive sentences and reliance on dismissed charges).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Jordan’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | The court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; any minor inaccuracies were harmless and the plea was valid | Plea was invalid: court misstated possible driver’s-license suspension, confused specifications discussion, and failed to advise that plea waives most appellate challenges (e.g., suppression) | Court: Partial noncompliance only; no prejudice (no license suspension imposed); court properly explained specifications; not required to advise about appellate waivers; plea valid. Assignment 1 overruled. |
| 2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (withdrawing suppression motion; failing to investigate/present mitigation; discovery/advice failures) | Counsel’s strategic withdrawal and sentencing advocacy were reasonable; plea waives most ineffective-assistance claims unless they invalidate the plea | Counsel was ineffective in withdrawing suppression motion, failing to present mitigation, withholding discovery, and failing to warn that plea waives suppression appeals | Court: Guilty plea waives these claims except to extent they affect the plea; withdrawal of suppression was a reasonable strategic choice because affidavit and corroborating trash pulls supported probable cause; no ineffective assistance shown. Assignment 2 overruled. |
| 3. Whether the nine-year sentence is contrary to law (consecutive sentences; use of dismissed charges/specs) | Trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; court may consider dismissed charges/facts and PSI; record supports findings (quantities, scales, firearms, trash corroboration, prior convictions) | Court improperly relied on dismissed trafficking charges/specs and expressed belief Jordan was guilty of greater offenses; cannot base consecutive/max sentences on dismissed charges alone | Court: Findings required by statute were made and supported by the record; facts underlying convictions (and corroborating evidence) supported inference of resale and organized activity; consecutive and maximum terms affirmed. Assignment 3 overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong Strickland standard)
- State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 (strict Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) compliance required)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (distinguishing constitutional vs. nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 defects; prejudice requirement)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Crim.R. 11 compliance principles)
- State v. Herring, 142 Ohio St.3d 165 (objective review of counsel performance; presumption of reasonable assistance)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (appellate review standard for consecutive-sentence findings)