State v. Raines, 2024 Ohio 3236

James E. Raines was indicted and convicted in Gallia County, Ohio, for three counts of violating a protection order (VPO) and one count of arson, following guilty pleas as part of a plea agreement.
The protection order was a Domestic Violence Temporary Protection Order (DVTPO) issued under R.C. 2919.26, which Raines was accused of violating via jail calls to the protected person, who allegedly facilitated the contact.
The State later conceded that Raines was indicted under the wrong statutory provision for the VPOs—R.C. 2919.27(A)(2) instead of (A)(1)—but asserted this did not prejudice Raines.
On appeal, Raines argued ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of a knowing and voluntary plea, and unlawful sentencing (including imposition of consecutive sentences and jail-time credit calculation).
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 54 months, with jail-time credit applied only to one count.
The appellate court overruled all Raines’s assignments of error and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance at plea hearing	Counsel failed to recognize/statute used was incorrect; if properly charged, Raines had a complete defense and would not have pled.	State acknowledges wrong subsection charged; argues no prejudice; plea deal benefitted Raines.	No prejudice shown; plea stands.
Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea	Plea not knowing/voluntary because based on misunderstanding of law/statutory elements.	Raines had copy of indictment, defense counsel explained charges.	Plea was knowing/voluntary.
Lawfulness of consecutive sentencing	Consecutive sentences for non-violent VPO conduct disproportionate and not analyzed properly.	Sentencing based on seriousness, defendant’s history, and statutory findings.	Sentencing lawful and supported.
Jail-time credit application	Jail-time credit should apply to aggregate sentence, not just one term.	Application as ordered complies with statute/rules; no prejudice.	No prejudicial error; judgment affirmed.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard: deficiency and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland test to guilty plea context)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (guilty plea not voluntary/knowing if defendant misunderstood charge’s nature)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make and include R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (appellate standard for review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G))
State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (jail-time credit for consecutive sentences applies to aggregate term)