State v. Lampe
2015 Ohio 3837
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Cody Lampe was indicted on multiple marijuana- and corruption-related counts arising from an alleged trafficking/cultivation network; he pled guilty to four counts in exchange for dismissal of seven counts and a recommended five-year sentence with judicial-release eligibility.
- Lampe's plea included an agreement to cooperate against co-defendants; several co-defendants (Baker, Honeycutt, Sparks) were tried and convicted, then appealed.
- This court (the Baker trilogy) reversed convictions for those co-defendants, holding the state failed to prove an associated‑in‑fact enterprise and thus venue in Warren County for the pattern-of-corrupt-activity charge.
- After those appellate decisions, Lampe moved post‑sentence to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing (1) a manifest injustice because the court had changed the law about what constitutes an "enterprise" (adopting the federal operations-and-management test), and (2) alternatively, ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise him of that test.
- The trial court denied the motion; Lampe appealed. The appeals court reviewed Crim.R. 32.1 manifest-injustice standard and abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lampe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lampe showed a manifest injustice warranting post‑sentence plea withdrawal | Baker trilogy did not change law to require operation/management test; venue and plea waiver bars apply | Baker trilogy redefined "enterprise" adopting Reves operations-and-management test, so Lampe was deprived of that benefit and plea is manifestly unjust | Denied — no manifest injustice; plea waived venue and he admitted offenses |
| Whether this court adopted the federal operations-and-management test for "enterprise" | The court did not cite or adopt Reves; Boyle (and related precedent) governs enterprise analysis in this district | Lampe contends court shifted to Reves standard after his plea | Held that this court did not adopt Reves; it relied on Boyle and prior district precedent |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising Lampe of the operations-and-management test | Even if that test applied, Lampe waived direct-appeal claims and failed to appeal earlier (res judicata); counsel’s performance was not deficient because Reves was not controlling | Counsel failed to advise him of controlling law and thus counsel’s deficient performance induced plea | Denied — claim barred by res judicata and counsel not deficient because Reves was not the law here |
| Whether Baker trilogy requires "businesslike" enterprise to prove pattern of corrupt activity | The court’s decisions turned on facts; it did not impose a per se businesslike-entity requirement | Lampe asserts the trilogy required a businesslike enterprise, undermining his plea | Denied — no change to law requiring a businesslike enterprise; rulings were fact-specific |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (defined association‑in‑fact enterprise structure: purpose, relationships, longevity)
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) (RICO: person must have some part in directing enterprise’s affairs)
- Turkette v. United States, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise concept under RICO; association‑in‑fact proof)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel test)