State v. Rice, 2012 Ohio 1474

Rice was indicted in Mahoning County on one count of attempted murder with a firearm specification, one count of felonious assault with a firearm specification, one count of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, and one count of having weapons while under disability.
Rice initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a guilty plea to attempted murder with the firearm specification and to improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, with the State agreeing to dismiss the remaining counts.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate 12-year sentence: eight years for attempted murder, three years for the firearm specification, and one year for improper handling of a firearm, to be served consecutively.
Rice, proceeding pro se, timely appealed; court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief under State v. Toney and sought to withdraw.
The issues on appeal included whether the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, whether the sentence complied with law and the court’s discretion, whether the plea agreement was breached, and whether counsel was ineffective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowingly and voluntarily made?	State contends Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was satisfied.	Rice argues the plea may not have been knowingly voluntary.	Yes; plea colloquy substantially complied and was voluntary.
Is the sentence clearly, convincingly not contrary to law and within the trial court’s discretion?	State asserts the sentence complies with 2929.11–2929.12 and ranges.	Rice argues the court abused its discretion in sentencing.	Yes; sentences within statutory ranges and no abuse of discretion.
Was there a breach of the plea agreement regarding sentencing recommendation?	State note of a recommended sentence was unspecified.	Rice claims six-year recommendation, breached by 12-year sentence.	Record does not show a binding six-year deal; no breach proven.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to investigate burglaries motivating the crime?	Rice claims ineffective assistance for lack of investigation.	Counsel’s performance not shown as deficient; defendant accepted representation.	No ineffective-assistance showing; no meritorious claim.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (guides review for felony-sentence appeals; abuse-of-discretion standard within Kalish framework)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (strict vs. substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) for pleas)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (presumes competent counsel unless proven ineffective; ineffective-assistance standard)