State v. Miller, 2017 Ohio 670

Nicholas Miller and a co-defendant were indicted for two counts of aggravated robbery (with firearm specifications), one count of abduction (with firearm specification), and one count of burglary arising from July 21, 2015 events. Miller pled not guilty initially.
On November 3, 2015 Miller withdrew his not-guilty pleas and entered no-contest pleas to two aggravated robbery counts and one burglary count; the state moved to nolle prosequi the abduction count and firearm specifications.
At plea hearing Miller affirmed he was satisfied with counsel, entered the pleas voluntarily, and acknowledged potential exposure up to 30 years and $55,000 in fines.
On November 20, 2015 the trial court sentenced Miller to consecutive terms: 4 years + 4 years + 3 years (total 11 years). The court made statutory findings for consecutive sentences and noted facts about the robberies and Miller’s juvenile record.
Miller appealed (delayed appeal granted) raising ineffective-assistance claims (plea coerced and counsel failures), insufficiency of factual basis for aggravated robbery, and failure to advise appellate rights under Crim.R. 32.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for coercing plea by promising concurrent sentences?	Miller: counsel pressured him and promised concurrent sentences, rendering plea involuntary.	State: plea colloquy and plea form show plea was knowing and voluntary; no coercion shown.	Held: No ineffective assistance; plea was knowing and voluntary.
Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to state’s factual recitation at plea?	Miller: facts did not show he possessed or controlled a weapon, so aggravated robbery elements not met.	State: Miller could be convicted as a principal/accomplice; accomplice liability imputes co-defendant’s gun.	Held: No ineffective assistance; factual recitation supported accomplice-based aggravated robbery.
Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to consecutive sentences?	Miller: record did not support the court’s finding that harm was "great or unusual."	State: court made statutory findings (tracked R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) and pointed to violent acts and juvenile record.	Held: No ineffective assistance; consecutive sentence lawful and counsel not ineffective.
Did the trial court fail to advise appellate rights under Crim.R. 32(B)(3)?	Miller: court omitted specific Crim.R. 32(B)(3)(a)-(d) advisals.	State: court advised of right to appeal and time limits; delay in filing appeal was explained and relief granted.	Held: Court failed to give the specific advisals, but Miller suffered no prejudicial effect; assignment not well-taken.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio application of Strickland two-prong test)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (clarifies sentencing explanation requirements for consecutive sentences)
State v. Chapman, 21 Ohio St.3d 41 (discusses accomplice liability and principal offender theory)
State v. Frost, 164 Ohio App.3d 61 (applies accomplice liability to aggravated robbery)