State v. Kryling, 2011 Ohio 166

Kryling was indicted for aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, with a repeat violent offender specification.
He initially pled not guilty; later, after negotiations, he pled guilty to the base count and the state dismissed the repeat offender specification.
The parties entered into a joint recommendation for a nine-year prison term, contingent on the court accepting the plea.
At Crim.R. 11 colloquy and sentencing, the court accepted the guilty plea, acknowledged the joint nine-year recommendation, and sentenced Kryling to nine years.
Kryling appeals, arguing the sentence is contrary to law and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to misstatements about judicial release.
The appellate court holds the sentence is not reviewable due to being jointly recommended and within statutory range; otherwise, it affirms the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the sentence subject to appellate review?	Kryling contends the joint recommendation does not bar review because no explicit written joint recommendation appears.	Kryling argues the sentence should be reviewable since not clearly documented as joint in all records.	Sentence not reviewable; within statutory range and jointly recommended.
Was the nine-year sentence authorized by law and properly joint?	State asserts the sentence was authorized and a product of the negotiated agreement.	Kryling contends misstatements about judicial release tainted the process and should affect review.	Within the statutory range; joint recommendation bars review under R.C. 2953.08(D).
Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to misstatements about judicial release?	State contends no prejudice from the misstatement; plea would have been the same.	Kryling claims ineffective assistance for failing to object and seek clarification.	No prejudice; defense failure to object did not affect outcome given the joint nine-year sentence.

State v. Giesey, 2006-Ohio-6851 (Ohio 2006) (jointly recommended sentence generally not reviewable if within range)
State v. Porterfield, 2005-Ohio-3095 (Ohio 2005) (jointly recommended sentence protection from review)
State v. Cremeens, 2006-Ohio-7092 (Ohio 2006) (supporting non-reviewability of joint sentences)
State v. Covington, 2006-Ohio-2700 (Ohio 2006) (joint sentence within range not reviewable)
State v. Hammond, 2006-Ohio-1570 (Ohio 2006) (notes on joint sentencing and review limits)
State v. Wright, 2009-Ohio-4636 (Ohio 2009) (recognizes evidence of joint sentence even without explicit language)
State v. Griffith, 2010-Ohio-5556 (Ohio 2010) (no evidence of joint sentence in some cases)
State v. Lampson, 2010-Ohio-3575 (Ohio 2010) (analysis of joint sentence indicators)
State v. Baird, 2007-Ohio-3400 (Ohio 2007) (jointly recommended sentence within range limits review barred)
State v. Rojas, 2004-Ohio-3642 (Ohio 2004) (not reviewable when sentence is jointly recommended)
State v. Strong, 2003-Ohio-7219 (Ohio 2003) (jointly recommended sentence outside review authority)
State v. Turrentine, 2008-Ohio-3231 (Ohio 2008) (supports non-review of joint sentences)
State v. Knisely, 2008-Ohio-2255 (Ohio 2008) (guidance on review of jointly recommended sentences)