State v. Marcum, 2013 Ohio 2447

James Marcum was convicted on multiple domestic violence and related charges after a plea agreement in Hocking County Municipal Court in consolidated cases CRB 11011101(A), CRB 1200157(A-E), and CRB1200393(A,B).
A domestic violence temporary protection order (DVTPO) was issued against him, prohibiting contact with Patricia Marcum and restricting proximity.
Appellant underwent competency restoration proceedings in mid-2012, then pleaded guilty on August 17, 2012 to six charges in exchange for dismissal of five charges.
The six guilty-plea charges included two domestic violence counts, two violations of protection orders, one criminal damaging, and one obstructing official business.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to 180 days in jail (with credit for time served), fines, costs, and a two-year community control sanction with a no-contact order toward Patricia.
Counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no meritorious issues; the appellate court granted permission to withdraw and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entering pleas	Marcum	Marcum’s plea was coerced by counsel	Plea knowingly voluntary; no coercion shown
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Marcum	Counsel coerced plea via recess; record insufficient	Issue not reviewable on direct appeal; dismissed as not properly raised in record
Imposition of no-contact order as a community-control sanction	State	No-contact condition unreasonable or excessive	No-error; condition reasonably related to rehabilitation and prevention of future violence

McDaniel v. State, 2010 Ohio-5215 (4th Dist. 2010) (requires plea voluntariness review under totality of circumstances)
State v. Eckler, 2009-Ohio-7064 (4th Dist. 2009) (de novo review of plea knowingness and voluntariness)
State v. Morrison, 2001-Ohio-2608 (4th Dist. 2001) (Crim.R.11 checklist guidance for waivers of rights)
State v. Jordan, 2001-Ohio-2608 (4th Dist. 2001) (waiver of rights must be intelligent and voluntary)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (Ohio) (Boykin-type rights waivers require explicit awareness of rights)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (Ohio) (prejudicial effect required to overturn plea on voluntariness grounds)
State v. Stewart, ‑‑ (1977) (prejudice standard for plea challenges)
State v. Barner, 2012-Ohio-4584 (4th Dist. 2012) (plea withdrawal standards and defense rights on appeal)
State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990) (Supreme Court) (probation conditions must relate to ends of probation and not be overly broad)
State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 814 N.E.2d 1201 (2004) (Ohio) (probation/community-control conditions must serve rehabilitation and public safety ends)
State v. Lane, 2010-Ohio-5639 (2nd Dist. 2010) (no-contact orders must be reasonably related to ends of probation and not overbroad)
Tvergyak, State v. Tvergyak (2005-Ohio-2445) (no-contact condition upheld when related to crimes and rehabilitation)