State v. Richardson, 2013 Ohio 1374

Richardson pled guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property under a plea agreement that would run eight months if he cooperated with probation and stayed out of trouble; PSI was ordered and Richardson’s compliance was essential to the deal.
Richardson failed to appear for the December 23, 2009 PSI interview and again missed the January 4, 2010 interview; he finally appeared January 5 and learned his continued noncooperation affected sentencing.
On January 8, 2010 Richardson was arrested for driving a Kentucky-stolen vehicle and attempted to elude Dayton police; this new arrest impacted the court’s view of his compliance with the plea and probation terms.
Sentencing was rescheduled due to the updated PSI; defense cited bereavement and a car accident as factors affecting cooperation, but the court ultimately found breach of the plea agreement.
The court rejected the eight-month term and sentenced Richardson to 12 months (F5) and 18 months (F4) consecutive; the appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error under Anders review.
The matter was reviewed under Anders, and no non-frivolous issues were identified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court abuse discretion by imposing a longer sentence after breach of the plea agreement?	Richardson breached by failing to cooperate and by new arrest.	Court should have enforced the eight-month term per the plea.	No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory ranges given breach.
Did the court deny due process by limiting Richardson’s ability to respond to the PSI?	Court refused to allow rebuttal to PSI, violating due process.	No explicit denial; no objection raised; rights not violated.	Waived; due process not violated.
Was defense counsel ineffective for not objecting to PSI or seeking a continuance?	Counsel failed to challenge inaccuracies in PSI.	No ineffective assistance; record shows no prejudice.	No ineffective assistance; no likelihood that outcome would change.
Was Richardson’s plea entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently?	Criminal history and coercive factors undermine voluntariness.	Crim.R. 11 colloquy satisfied; plea knowingly entered.	Plea entered knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently.

State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (establishes two-step sentence-review framework (lawfulness and abuse of discretion))
State v. Stevens, 2008-Ohio-5775 (2d Dist.) (Kirwan; compliance with sentencing statutes reviewed for clarity)
State v. Nelson, 2012-Ohio-5797 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25026) (trial court has broad discretion within statutory ranges; must follow R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12)
State v. Eicholtz, 2013-Ohio-302 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2012 CA 7) (reiterates need to apply sentencing factors; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Liskany, 196 Ohio App.3d 609 (2011-Ohio-4456) (improper ex parte materials breach plea-recommendation promise)
Matson v. State of Wisconsin, 2003 WI App 253, 674 N.W.2d 51 (Wis. Ct. App.) (discussion on plea-alteration and state’s burden to adhere to bargain)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (due process concerns when key PSI information is not challenged)
AAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse of discretion definition and reasonableness)