State v. Morgan, 2024 Ohio 625

Karen Morgan was convicted in two separate criminal cases in Union County, Ohio.
In case 23-CR-06, she pled guilty to criminal trespass, burglary, and petty theft, receiving an aggregate prison term of 2-3 years.
In case 23-CR-52, she pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine and received a consecutive aggregate sentence of 6-9 years.
Morgan appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in sentencing and that she had ineffective assistance of counsel.
The appellate court reviewed whether the sentences were within statutory guidelines and whether her counsel's performance prejudiced her.

Issue	Morgan's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not giving the minimum sentence for drug trafficking and running the two sentences consecutively	The court should have given a minimum sentence in the trafficking case, especially since it gave a minimum sentence in the burglary case; consecutive sentences are improper	Sentences were within statutory ranges and the court made necessary findings for consecutive sentences with proper consideration of facts	The sentences were supported by the record and not contrary to law; no error in sentencing
Whether Morgan was denied effective assistance of counsel regarding the burglary conviction	Counsel was deficient for not securing a certified copy of the prior trespass judgment that led to the burglary charge; had this been done, a less serious charge may have applied	The defense received a copy of the Walmart Trespass Notice in discovery; argument based on evidence outside the record is speculative	Morgan failed to show prejudice or deficiency by counsel; claim rejected

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (appellate court's authority in reviewing sentencing factors)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for consecutive sentencing findings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)