State v. Milczewski, 2012 Ohio 1743

Milczewski was charged in January 2011 with kidnapping (felony), domestic violence (felony) with a prior, and disrupting public services (felony) in Cuyahoga County; he pled guilty to domestic violence and the other counts were nolle prosequied, resulting in a three-year prison term.
Milczewski challenges ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing his attorney should have sought a competency evaluation and potential transfer to the mental health docket.
The issue is governed by Strickland v. Washington and related Ohio law; a guilty plea generally waives appealable trial errors unless they affect knowing and voluntary plea.
The State and Milczewski's counsel debated whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, with the record showing Milczewski understood the plea and its consequences.
The court applied a two-step standard for ineffective-assistance claims related to pleas and found no deficient performance or prejudice.
The court ultimately affirmed the judgment, and the case was remanded for execution of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did counsel’s alleged failure to seek competency evaluation render the plea involuntary?	Milczewski	Milczewski	No reversible error; no showing that but-for deficiency he would not have pled guilty.
Was the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under Crim.R. 11?	State	Milczewski	Yes; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(b) and no prejudice shown for the claimed omissions.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) ( Strickland standard applied to guilty pleas; prejudice required for plea to be set aside.)
State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (Nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 rights require substantial compliance.)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Knowingly and voluntarily plea requires understanding of waivers.)
State v. Barnett, 73 Ohio App.3d 244 (1991) (Plea-related errors require showing of prejudice if nonconstitutional rights claimed.)
State v. Hill, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Guides Strickland prejudice inquiry.)
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (Guilty plea waives most claims of ineffective assistance absent defects affecting knowing plea.)
State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 94569, 2010-Ohio-5607 (2010) (Crim.R. 11 rights nonconstitutional; substantial compliance analysis applied.)
State v. Griffin, 8th Dist. No. 83724, 2004-Ohio-4344 (2004) (Postrelease-control advisement context within Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).)
State v. McDuffie, 8th Dist. No. 96721, 2011-Ohio-6436 (2011) (Advisement of postrelease control can be substantial compliance.)
State v. Conrad, 8th Dist. No. 88934, 2007-Ohio-5717 (2007) (Nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 rights require substantial compliance.)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (1991) (Plea-related ineffective-assistance standard and waivers.)