State v. Lemasters
2012 Ohio 3080
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Lemasters was charged in a 21-count indictment in June 2010; numerous specifications were charged.
- In February 2011, Lemasters pled guilty to amended Count 1, rape, and amended Count 3, gross sexual imposition; other counts were dismissed.
- The plea included a written joint recommendation of 15 years to life, with a stipulation that the counts would not merge because of separate animus and separate events.
- The trial court sentenced Lemasters to 10 years-to-life on Count 1 and 5 years on Count 3, consecutive, for 15 years-to-life, plus mandatory five-year postrelease control on each count.
- In August 2011, Lemasters moved to withdraw his plea; in October 2011, he moved to alter, amend, or vacate void sentence; both were denied.
- Lemasters appeals the denial of the motion to alter, amend, or vacate void sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postrelease control and merger were properly addressed | Lemasters contested postrelease control and argued allied offenses should merge. | Lemasters contends offenses could not be separately sentenced and postrelease control was improper. | Postrelease control proper; offenses not merged; sentence not reviewable due to plea agreement. |
| Whether plea agreement denying merging of allied offenses was proper under Underwood | State asserts separate animus justified separate convictions. | Lemasters argues merger was required absent separate animus. | Underwood permits separate sentences where plea specifies separate animus; sentence not reviewable. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct or improper plea admonitions affected voluntary plea | State allegedly misinformed about potential sentence. | Defendant alleges misinformation infected plea. | Contentions barred by res judicata; lack of transcript prevents review. |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance related to merger and plea admonitions | Counsel failed to challenge allied-offense merger and erroneous admonitions. | Counsel did not adequately challenge merger or the plea disclaimers. | Barred by res judicata; no review of these arguments on the denied motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (defines allied-offense merger analysis under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (plea agreements can stipulate separate animus; merger required if silent)
- State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (2010-Ohio-2671) (statutory postrelease-control mandate for certain felonies)
- State v. Peterson, 2012-Ohio-87 (8th Dist.) (presumes regularity where transcript absent)