State v. Miller, 2018 Ohio 4379

Raymond A. Miller was indicted on 17 counts (including multiple burglaries, thefts, grand thefts, attempted burglary, breaking and entering, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity) arising from entering private residences and stealing property in Geauga County.
Miller pleaded guilty (July 12, 2017) pursuant to a plea agreement: guilty to amended Count 1 (engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, felony 2), Count 5 (attempted burglary, felony 3), amended Count 9 (aggravated theft, felony 3), Count 10 (burglary, felony 2), and Count 13 (burglary, felony 2); remaining counts were dismissed.
Sentencing (September 15, 2017) produced an aggregate 20-year prison term (6 + 2 + 2 + 6 + 6 with specified consecutive/ concurrent structure) and 256 days credit for time served; restitution to be determined later.
At sentencing the court initially misstated postrelease-control as five years, then corrected to a mandatory three-year term; the court later issued a nunc pro tunc to fix clerical errors.
Miller filed a pro se post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing defects; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Miller)	Held
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; plea waived pre-plea challenges	Counsel failed to meaningfully oppose prosecution, waived speedy-trial rights, misadvised, and coerced plea (wife issue)	Waiver principles apply; Miller failed to show counsel’s errors affected knowing/voluntary plea; no prejudice shown; claim rejected
2. Postrelease-control notification	Court correctly advised and documented mandatory three-year PRC; sentencing entry complied	Sentence void because court failed to state PRC length for each count, rendering sentence invalid	Court properly notified of the longest applicable PRC (three years); PRC portion not void; claim rejected
3. Standard for motion to withdraw plea	Post-sentence motion standard (manifest injustice) applies	Miller contends sentence was void so his motion should be treated as pre-sentence (freely granted)	Only PRC portion could be void; because PRC was proper, motion is post-sentence and reviewed for manifest injustice; claim rejected
4. Alleged private threats by counsel re: co-defendant wife	Assertions outside record must be raised by post-conviction relief, not on direct appeal	Counsel threatened/coerced Miller to plead guilty by referencing wife’s cooperation or contempt exposure	Court noted Miller denied threats at plea hearing; private-allegation claims are dehors-record and must be pursued in post-conviction proceedings; claim rejected

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland test)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (guilty plea waives pre-plea challenges unless plea involuntary)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (pre-sentence motions to withdraw plea freely granted)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (statutorily compliant PRC notification required)
State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (sentencing entry must reflect PRC notice given at hearing)
State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (addressing consequences of improper PRC notice; later limited by statute/cases)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (only PRC portion void when PRC notification deficient)