State v. Meadows, 2019 Ohio 4943

Trooper stopped Daniel Meadows for driving left of center; trooper detected alcohol odor and Meadows admitted drinking one beer; Meadows performed field sobriety tests and was arrested for OVI.
Meadows refused a breath test; two separate misdemeanor cases were filed: 18 TRC 4641 (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) — OVI under the influence) and 19 TRC 293 (R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) — OVI with refusal plus allegation of a 2005 prior OVI within 20 years).
Meadows moved to dismiss 19 TRC 293 on speedy-trial grounds; the trial court denied the motion, and a jury convicted him on both charges.
At trial the state introduced Meadows’s 2005 OVI conviction; defense did not stipulate or object to admission of the prior conviction.
At sentencing the trial court imposed separate sentences in both cases; on appeal Meadows argued speedy-trial violation, improper admission of the prior conviction, plain error in imposing separate sentences for the same conduct, and ineffective assistance for failing to move to merge.
The appellate court affirmed rulings on speedy trial and admissibility, but found plain error in imposing separate sentences, held counsel ineffective for failing to seek merger, vacated the sentences, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Speedy trial for 19 TRC 293	Continuances in 18 TRC 4641 (prior case) tolled time and apply to the later-filed charge	The second charge is the same conduct; state had 90 days from arrest to try 19 TRC 293	Court: No speedy-trial violation; continuances in the earlier case tolled time for the later case; Assignment I overruled
2) Admissibility of 2005 OVI	Prior OVI is an element of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2); state must prove it, so evidence admissible	Admission of prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial	Court: Admission proper; prior conviction is an element and defense did not stipulate or object; Assignment II overruled
3) Sentencing on both OVI convictions	State ultimately conceded sentences were improper; prosec. should elect one case for sentencing	Two convictions arise from same conduct; imposing separate sentences violates allied-offenses/double jeopardy	Court: Plain error found; separate sentences void; trial court should have required state to elect; Assignment III sustained
4) Ineffective assistance for not moving to merge	Failure to object not automatically ineffective; but where plain error exists, counsel’s omission can be prejudicial	Counsel should have moved to merge; omission prejudiced Meadows	Court: Counsel ineffective for failing to request merger given sentencing error; Assignment IV sustained

State v. Williams, 71 N.E.3d 234 (Ohio 2016) (separate sentences for allied offenses of similar import are void)
State v. Hoover, 916 N.E.2d 1056 (Ohio 2009) (refusal is not a separate offense; prior conviction is an element of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2))
State v. Creech, 84 N.E.3d 981 (Ohio 2016) (trial court must accept a defense stipulation to a prior conviction when offered)
State v. Pachay, 416 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio 1980) (statutory speedy-trial provisions must be strictly enforced)
State v. Ladd, 383 N.E.2d 579 (Ohio 1978) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right applies to the states)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (deferential review of counsel performance under Strickland)
State v. Gustafson, 668 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio 1996) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense)