State v. Rivera, 2021 Ohio 1343

Rivera was arrested for first-degree domestic violence (allegedly grabbed/squeezed and pushed his live-in partner) and a temporary protection order (TPO) was issued.
He was later charged with violating the TPO after police found him with the victim at a hotel; prosecutors then moved to dismiss the TPO-violation charge.
At a change-of-plea hearing the State downgraded the domestic-violence charge to a fourth-degree misdemeanor; the prosecutor said the victim agreed with the plea and wanted the no-contact order vacated.
The court accepted the plea, imposed a 30-day jail sentence with 20 days suspended (Rivera to serve 10 days total with credit), 36 months probation, mental-health/domestic-violence/substance-abuse assessments, a no-contact order until a counselor cleared contact, and a $50 fine.
Rivera appealed, claiming (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for allowing the plea after the court said it was not bound by the recommendation, and (2) the sentence (especially multiple assessments and no-contact) was an abuse of discretion. The Sixth District affirmed.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel for permitting plea after court said it was not bound by recommendation	Counsel should have prevented plea because court indicated it might not follow recommendation; if counsel stopped the plea, State would have had no witnesses and likely dismissed charges	Counsel negotiated a favorable plea (reduced charge, dismissed TPO violation); plea was knowing and voluntary; tactical plea bargaining is permissible; record doesn’t show State lacked witnesses; Rivera didn’t say he would have insisted on trial	Claim denied. Counsel’s plea negotiation was a permissible tactic; even assuming deficiency, Rivera failed to show prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial or that charges would be dismissed)
Sentencing — challenge to jail term, assessments, and no-contact order as abuse of discretion	Sentence was excessively punitive; multiple assessments were unreasonable and court failed to consider victim’s dependence on Rivera	Sentence was within statutory misdemeanor limits; assessments and probation are authorized by statute and were appropriate given Rivera’s record and risk of contact with victim; victim’s wishes are not dispositive	Claim denied. Sentence was within statutory bounds and not an abuse of discretion; court presumed to have followed sentencing statutes

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (presumption that licensed counsel is effective)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption/description of Strickland framework)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (discussion of ineffective-assistance standards)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (guilty plea waives prior non-plea claims unless plea was involuntary)
State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582 (plea bargaining can be a trial tactic)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (debateable trial tactics do not necessarily establish ineffective assistance)
State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (prejudice standard when defendant pleads guilty: would defendant have insisted on trial?)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (definition of abuse of discretion)
Toledo v. Reasonover, 5 Ohio St.2d 22 (presumption that judge followed statutory sentencing procedures when sentence is within statutory limits)