State v. Mills
2021 Ohio 52
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- July 29, 2010: an armed intruder broke into the victim’s home; the case went cold until DNA evidence produced a CODIS hit in 2011 linking the scene evidence to Mills.
- Police obtained a DNA sample from Mills in 2016 that matched items found near the victim’s home.
- Mills was arrested Aug. 16, 2016 and indicted Aug. 26, 2016 on aggravated burglary (with firearm spec), aggravated robbery (with firearm spec), and having weapons while under disability; he pleaded not guilty and was tried and convicted.
- Trial counsel stipulated to a prior felony-drug conviction for the disability element; Mills appealed arguing manifest-weight error and ineffective assistance; this court rejected those claims on direct appeal.
- Mills successfully moved to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging prior appellate counsel was ineffective; in the reopened appeal he raised (1) that the weapons-under-disability count was time-barred and counsel should have moved to dismiss, and (2) that the trial court failed to properly notify him about post-release control at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Mills) Argument | Defendant's (State) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the weapons-under-disability count was time-barred | Statute of limitations expired six years after July 29, 2010; trial counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it | Corpus delicti (identity + criminal nature) was not discovered until the 2011 CODIS hit, so R.C. tolling delayed the limitations deadline into 2017; indictment in 2016 was timely | Court rejects Mills: corpus delicti discovered in 2011; limitations tolled; assignment of error overruled |
| Whether sentencing advisement on post-release control was legally sufficient | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object at sentencing; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising that issue; Mills was not told parole board may impose up to half the original term upon violation | State concedes the sentencing advisement was deficient | Court sustains; post-release-control portion of sentence set aside; remand for limited resentencing to properly advise and impose post-release control |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (discusses Strickland and ineffective-assistance framework)
- State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 2010) (definition of corpus delicti)
- State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256 (Ohio 1988) (corpus delicti explained via homicide example)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (trial court’s duty to notify at sentencing about post-release control)
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 2017) (reaffirming post-release-control notification requirements)