State v. Maxcy-Tipton, 166 N.E.3d 84

Background

Brooke Maxcy-Tipton pleaded guilty to fourth-degree felony arson in Wood County and was sentenced to community control on December 24, 2019.
Ohio’s arson registry statute (R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(a)-(b)) requires annual registration and, absent a court-ordered reduction at sentencing, effectively imposes a lifetime registration; the court may reduce the term to more than ten years but less than life only if the prosecutor and investigating agency recommend it.
At sentencing defense counsel did not (a) raise a constitutional challenge to the arson-registration statute or (b) request reduction of the registration term.
On appeal Maxcy-Tipton argued ineffective assistance of counsel for those omissions and separately argued the registry is facially unconstitutional under separation of powers.
The Sixth District held counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the statute’s constitutionality (conflicting appellate decisions made the claim viable), found prejudice from that failure, reversed and remanded for further proceedings, and deemed the facial challenge moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional challenge to the arson registry statute	Counsel should have challenged the statute’s constitutionality at sentencing; failure deprived her of preservation and appellate review	Guilty plea waived many ineffective-assistance claims; counsel reasonably declined an untested issue	Counsel was ineffective for not preserving the constitutional challenge given existing conflicting appellate decisions; reversal and remand ordered
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a reduction of the registration term at sentencing	Counsel should have requested a reduction; court likely would have granted less than lifetime registration	The statute gives the court discretion only if prosecutor and investigating agency recommend reduction; defendant cannot force them to move for reduction	Court held defendant did not prove counsel ineffective on this point because statute provides no mechanism to compel a prosecutor/agency motion; issue left for trial court to consider on remand
Whether the arson registry is facially unconstitutional (separation of powers)	Registry violates separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional on its face	State defended statute’s validity and argued issues were waived or not ripe	Court did not decide the facial-separation-of-powers challenge (declared it moot) and remanded for full consideration of statutory constitutionality at the trial level

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (prejudice as denial of substantive or procedural right)
State v. Ketterer, 855 N.E.2d 48 (Ohio 2006) (guilty plea waives most pre-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Lott, 555 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio 1990) (attorney presumed competent; defendant bears burden)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (articulating Ohio ineffective-assistance analysis consistent with Strickland)
State v. Foust, 823 N.E.2d 836 (Ohio 2004) (declining to find counsel ineffective for failing to raise previously rejected claims)
State v. Cornwell, 715 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio 1999) (same)
State v. Awan, 489 N.E.2d 277 (Ohio 1986) (appellate courts generally will not consider unpreserved constitutional errors)