State v. Patterson, 2012 Ohio 5600

Guilty plea to two trafficking counts (crack cocaine) and one weapon-under-disability count; negotiated plea to limit prison term with State agreeing to two-year sentence and to nollege other counts.
CI-buy incidents at 725 Bates St. involving Patterson; first buy: $80 for crack, powder cut on plate; second buy: $100, crack prepared on plate.
Search of 725 Bates Street yielded firearms, scales, crack cocaine, marijuana, and related paraphernalia; weapons found in kitchen and bedroom.
Indictment charged: two felony trafficking counts, possession of crack cocaine, two weapons-under-disability counts, and related forfeiture specifications.
Plea admitted facts; sentencing court imposed 47 months; appeal challenges indictment sufficiency, validity of plea, ineffective assistance, and sentence under new consecutive-sentence rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Indictment sufficiency for having a weapon under disability	Patterson argues insufficiency due to lack of dates for prior convictions	Patterson contends indictment defects preclude valid conviction	Indictment sufficient; plea waiver and record support findings
Conviction void due to insufficient evidence	State argues plea waives pre-plea issues; no merit to insufficiency claim	Patterson asserts lack of evidence for the weapon-under-disability count	No error; plea knowingly entered; indictment upheld
Plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered	State asserts proper Crim.R.11 compliance; no defect	Patterson claims plea was based on defective indictment and evidence	Plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered
Effective assistance of counsel	Appellant claims ineffective assistance due to plea strategy	Counsel performance not deficient; no prejudice shown	No reversible error; Strickland standard not satisfied
Consecutive-sentence findings and legality	State concedes plea but argues imposed sentence above recommendation	Sentence mislabeled under new consecutive-sentence requirements	Consecutive terms supported by record; no error in sentencing under current statute

State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1992) (waiver of pre-plea errors upon guilty plea)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1973) (plea waives non-jurisdictional defects)
State v. Martin, 2011–Ohio–222 (8th Dist. 2011) (non-jurisdictional indictment defects waived by guilty plea)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1992) (as above (waiver))
State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (1st Dist. 2012) (plea validity and indictment considerations)
State v. Frasca, 2012-Ohio-3746 (11th Dist. 2012) (consecutive-sentencing findings not verbatim statute words required)
State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-2075 (1st Dist. 2012) (consecutive-sentencing sufficiency based on record evidence)
State v. Green, 2005-Ohio-3268 (11th Dist. 2005) (analysis for consecutive-sentence findings)
State v. Murrin, 2004-Ohio-3962 (8th Dist. 2004) (no rigid talismanic language required; record support suffices)
State v. Grissom, 2002-Ohio-5154 (11th Dist. 2002) (consecutive-sentence analysis guidance)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (consecutive-sentencing framework; pre-Foster language revived/altered)
State v. Yeager, 2004-Ohio-3640 (Carroll App. 2004) (plea-based waiver of appellate review for negotiated sentences)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (establishes framework for consecutive-sentence findings)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (remainder of Foster principles on sentencing)