State v. Lindsey, 2019 Ohio 1550

Defendant William C. M. Lindsey cared for his girlfriend’s 23‑month‑old child, who suffered life‑threatening first‑ and second‑degree scald burns over ~80–90% of his body and required 99 days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries.
Investigators interviewed Lindsey in a hospital conference room after advising him of Miranda rights; he signed a waiver form, spoke for about an hour, and left voluntarily without arrest.
Lindsey was indicted on two counts of child endangering, one count of felonious assault, and one count of evidence tampering; he pled guilty to the charges with no sentencing agreement; allied counts were merged for sentencing.
Trial court sentenced Lindsey to 8 years on second‑degree child endangering and 30 months on evidence tampering, ordered consecutive terms, yielding a total of 10 years, 6 months.
On appeal Lindsey challenged (1) imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to plead guilty (instead of no contest) and for advising he not testify at the suppression hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lindsey)	Held
Whether record fails to support imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences	Sentencing within statutory range; trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/12 factors and made required findings for consecutive terms	Record does not support maximum/consecutive sentence; termination entry insufficient	Affirmed: record supports sentences and statutory findings; no clear and convincing basis to modify under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)
Whether counsel was ineffective for permitting guilty plea rather than advising no contest (prejudice from forfeiting suppression challenge)	Suppression ruling was correct; interview was non‑custodial so Miranda protections were not required; no viable suppression basis => no prejudice	Counsel’s failure to advise plea consequences was deficient and caused prejudice by waiving suppression appeal	Affirmed: defendant cannot show deficient performance on record and, even assuming deficiency, no prejudice because suppression would not have been sustained
Whether counsel’s advice that defendant not testify at suppression hearing violated due process or was ineffective	Counsel gave advice not a prohibition; record shows client acquiesced; no evidence what defendant would have said	Counsel improperly told defendant he could not testify, depriving him of right to testify	Affirmed: advice was strategic, not a prohibition; no objective deficiency shown and no prejudice demonstrated

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (waiver of Miranda rights may be inferred where defendant indicates understanding and speaks freely)