State v. Quigley, 2012 Ohio 2751

Quigley applied under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Quigley, arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing Crim.R. 11 scrupulous compliance and merger of allied offenses.
The State filed opposition; the court denied reopening in part and granted in part.
Crim.R. 11 inquiry at the plea in CR-539841 showed Quigley repeatedly acknowledged understanding waivers and the judge explained charges and postrelease control.
Quigley argued for ineffective assistance of trial counsel for an invalid plea, but the court rejected this as baseless and strategic.
Regarding allied offenses, the court found no inquiry into whether burglary and theft were allied offenses of similar import, and that the record lacked essential details to determine this, constituting plain error.
Result: denial of reopening as to the CR-539841 plea issue; granting reopening on the allied offenses issue in CR-542618, with remand for allied-offenses determination and resentencing; appellate case reinstated on active docket and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient re Crim.R. 11 and related waivers	Quigley	Quigley	Denied; no reversible Strickland prejudice shown
Whether the trial court failed to inquire into allied offenses after a guilty plea	Quigley	Quigley	Granted in part; remanded for allied-offenses determination and resentencing

State v. Buchanan, 43 Ohio App.2d 93 (8th Dist. 1974) (plea validity evaluated by substance over form)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (trial court must determine allied offenses; plain error if not)
State v. Corrao, 2011-Ohio-2517 (8th Dist. 2011) (failure to inquire into allied offenses on a guilty plea constitutes plain error)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (defining when offenses are allied; same conduct required)
State v. Baker, 2012-Ohio-1833 (8th Dist. 2012) (application of allied-offenses analysis on appeal)