State v. Mankins, 2013 Ohio 4039

Defendant Michael Mankins operated a used-car dealership and was indicted in four Cuyahoga County cases charging theft, passing bad checks, intimidation/menacing, and numerous counts in a large indictment (CR-562940) including grand theft, tampering with governmental records, forgery, odometer tampering, and sale of vehicles with altered odometers.
Mankins pleaded guilty or no contest pursuant to a plea package: guilty pleas in three lesser cases (CR-554926, CR-562876, CR-565884) and no-contest pleas in the large multi-count case (CR-562940). Restitution and dismissal of other counts were part of the agreement.
The trial court accepted the pleas after colloquies, obtained factual bases, and ordered presentence reports. At sentencing the court heard statements, continued to allow restitution and business wind-down, then imposed a mix of prison terms and five-year probationary dispositions across many counts.
The written journal entries, however, diverged from the oral sentencing colloquy: the CR-562940 entry showed the state ‘‘elected’’ certain counts for merger and stated many sentences were concurrent with each other but consecutive to other cases — language not reflected in the oral pronouncement.
On appeal Mankins challenged the imposition of consecutive sentences and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise mitigation during plea bargaining.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing contained reversible error (consecutive sentences, merger, and journal-entry discrepancies)	State argues sentences are valid as imposed	Mankins contends sentencing procedures were inadequate: improper consecutive sentencing, unexplained elections/merger, and journal entries inconsistent with oral pronouncement	Court found plain error: vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing due to (1) lack of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutives, (2) journal entries modifying oral sentence without defendant present, (3) failure to state consequences for probation, and (4) merger/election issues not reflected on the record
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise risks that court might not accept plea package	State: no record support for ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal	Mankins: counsel failed to warn that judge might reject plea package or impose harsher sanctions	Court declined to find ineffective assistance on direct appeal; held claim requires evidence outside the record and is for postconviction relief, so assignment overruled

State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (discusses plain error review where deviation from a legal rule is obvious on the record)