State v. Moll, 2020 Ohio 2784

In 2014 Moll pled guilty to second-degree felonious assault and was placed on five years of community control with a seven-year prison term reserved.
The State filed a motion to revoke community control in March 2019; it was dismissed while Moll was in a correctional/rehab facility for violations in another case.
On August 6, 2019 the State filed a second motion to revoke alleging Moll tested positive for Suboxone (possession of a controlled substance in violation of community-control conditions).
At the September 17, 2019 hearing Moll, after consulting with counsel and after being advised by the court of rights and consequences, admitted the violation; counsel argued mitigation and Moll spoke on his own behalf.
The trial court revoked community control and imposed the reserved seven-year prison term; Moll appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to admit rather than demand a contested hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising Moll to admit the community-control violation instead of requesting a contested hearing	State: Counsel provided advice, the admission was knowing and voluntary, and the record showed strong evidence of violation so no prejudice	Moll: Counsel was ineffective for recommending admission rather than a merits hearing, which denied his Sixth Amendment right	Court affirmed: no substantial violation of counsel's duties and no prejudice; facts showed State likely could prove violation by preponderance, so admission did not render outcome unreliable

State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (1976) (fair-trial and substantial-justice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (1976) (two-step ineffective-assistance analysis: duty and prejudice)
Vaughn v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 299 (1965) (licensed attorney presumed competent — burden on defendant)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (discussion of ineffective-assistance framework)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (prejudice requires reasonable probability result would differ)
State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 (2016) (prejudice inquiry — whether result was fundamentally unfair or unreliable)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice focuses on fundamental unfairness/unreliability)
State v. Wagner, 179 Ohio App.3d 165 (2008) (burden in community-control revocation is preponderance of the evidence)