State v. Liso, 2014 Ohio 3549

James A. Liso was convicted by a jury of rape of a 10‑year‑old in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).
Trial court originally imposed a straight 10‑year prison term; the Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction notified the court that the statutory punishment required an indefinite term of 10 years to life.
The trial court held resentencing hearings (one was held while an appeal was pending and was later remanded); ultimately the court resentenced Liso to the statutory mandatory minimum of 10‑years‑to‑life under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a).
Liso appealed the resentencing, advancing a single assignment of error that raised three arguments: (1) the court erred by refusing to appoint new counsel for resentencing; (2) the sentence was excessive/unsupported; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing.
The court rejected each argument, finding no good cause to substitute counsel, that the court was required by statute to impose the 10‑years‑to‑life sentence, and that counsel’s conduct caused no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying request for new appointed counsel at resentencing	Court (prosecution) argued substitution not required; appointed counsel had represented defendant at trial and sentencing	Liso argued he was entitled to new counsel because he had earlier alleged ineffective assistance against the same attorney on direct appeal	Denial affirmed: no conflict, breakdown, or good cause; counsel experienced and previously found adequate on appeal
Whether the 10‑years‑to‑life sentence was excessive/unsupported by evidence	Court: statutory mandatory sentence applies for rape of child under 13	Liso argued sentence was excessive/unsupported	Affirmed: statute R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a) mandated the indefinite 10‑years‑to‑life term; court had no discretion
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at resentencing by declining re‑advisement of sex‑offender duties	Prosecution: defendant personally declined the court’s offer to re‑advise; counsel acted reasonably	Liso: counsel’s refusal to request re‑advisement and failure to present better mitigation constituted ineffective assistance	Rejected: defendant refused re‑advisement; even if counsel deficient, no prejudice because statutory sentence mandatory

State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1999) (indigent defendant must show good cause to substitute appointed counsel)
United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1990) (discussion of good‑cause standard for substitution of counsel)
State v. Blankenship, 102 Ohio App.3d 534 (12th Dist. 1995) (examples of good cause: conflict, breakdown in communication)
State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2001) (trial court has discretion to substitute appointed counsel)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)