State v. Mayes
2014 Ohio 4409
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Derrick Mayes pleaded no-contest to multiple child-sex offenses and received concurrent sentences totaling ten years to life; he did not appeal.
- Seven months after sentencing Mayes filed an R.C. 2953.21 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming counsel assured parole eligibility and likely parole within 12–16 years.
- Mayes submitted affidavits from three attorneys predicting he likely would serve substantially more (around 20–25 years) before parole.
- At an evidentiary hearing, trial counsel Richard Skelton admitted he told Mayes he would be parole-eligible after ten years but testified he only estimated Mayes’s first realistic parole chance at about 15–16 years and denied promising parole at 14 years.
- The trial court found Skelton credible and Mayes not credible, rejected the expert affidavits as relying on Mayes’s version of facts, and denied relief.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding counsel’s parole-timing opinion was not demonstrably erroneous or constitutionally deficient and that speculative parole estimates do not show prejudice warranting plea withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Mayes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by giving misleading/parolerelease estimates that induced a no-contest plea | Skelton told Mayes he would likely be paroled within 14–16 years, which was erroneous and induced the plea | Counsel gave a prediction/opinion about parole timing; estimates are speculative and not guaranteed — no deficient performance or prejudice | Court held counsel’s estimate was an opinion not demonstrably false or misleading and did not constitute ineffective assistance; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (defendant may base plea on parole prospects but counsel’s prediction is beyond precise calculation)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (reasonable attorney judgments may be mistaken; plea advice need not withstand hindsight scrutiny)
- Wellnitz v. Page, 420 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1970) (attorney may offer sentence/parole predictions based on experience for plea decisions)
- Thomas v. Dugger, 846 F.2d 669 (11th Cir. 1988) (counsel’s optimistic statements about release do not necessarily render a plea involuntary)