State v. Maddox, 2012 Ohio 478

Maddox was convicted of vandalism and breaking and entering, both fifth-degree felonies, and sentenced to two consecutive years’ imprisonment.
December 25, 2010, Maddox allegedly damaged the delicatessen by throwing a rock through a window, ransacking the store, and stealing tobacco valued under $500.
He was indicted on vandalism, breaking and entering, and theft; pled guilty to the first two counts, with the theft charge nolled.
Before sentencing, Maddox, with counsel, filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion and imposed sentence.
On appeal, Maddox raises five assignments of error, including allied offenses/merger, validity of the guilty plea under Crim.R. 11, ineffective assistance, withdrawal of plea, and judicial bias.
The court affirms the trial court’s judgment and addresses merger, plea validity, withdrawal, bias, and related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the vandalism and breaking-and-entering offenses allied and subject to merger?	Maddox argues the offenses are allied; merger required.	State argues offenses are of dissimilar import or lacked a single animus.	Not merged; allied-offense merger not supported.
Was Maddox’s guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under Crim.R. 11?	Maddox contends plea was not knowingly entered due to merger issues.	State asserts thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy; substantial compliance.	Plea valid under substantial compliance; no reversible error.
Did Maddox receive ineffective assistance for not raising merger and withdrawal issues?	Counsel failed to raise merger and to withdraw plea effectively.	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no prejudice shown.	No ineffective-assistance violation; arguments rejected.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the presentence motion to withdraw the plea?	Court should have allowed withdrawal based on reasonable grounds.	Denial was proper after hearing and Crim.R. 11 considerations.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Was the judge biased against Maddox during sentencing?	Court’s remark showed bias against Maddox.	Remark reflected concerns about history, not pervasive bias.	No judicial bias established; remark did not show deep-seated favoritism.

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (plain-error standard for merger applies on appeal)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (two-tier test for allied offenses merger based on conduct and animus)
State v. Hicks, 2011-Ohio-2780 (2011-Ohio-2780) (case-by-case sentencing inquiry for allied offenses)
State v. Snuffer, 2011-Ohio-6430 (2011-Ohio-6430) (sentencing-based merger inquiry for allied offenses)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992-Ohio-1) (standard for withdrawing pleas before sentencing)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996-Ohio-179) (knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily standard for Crim.R. 11)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980-Ohio-) (pre-sentence withdrawal considerations and discretion of trial court)