State v. Rodriquez
2017 Ohio 1318
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Scotty Rodriquez was indicted on three counts of trafficking in cocaine and initially pleaded not guilty; on May 19, 2016 he entered no contest pleas to all counts and was found guilty.
- At sentencing (July 12, 2016) the court imposed five-year prison terms on Counts 1 and 3 to be served consecutively, and a concurrent 36-month term on Count 2, for an aggregate 10-year term.
- No written plea agreement appears in the record; at the plea hearing the parties stated an "open sentencing" arrangement with no recommendation, and mandatory penalties were acknowledged for the first-degree counts.
- Rodriquez appealed, raising claims that he never entered a plea, that the State breached the plea agreement, that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made (post-Gonzales issues), that counsel was ineffective, and that the court failed to properly impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C).
- The appellate court reviewed the plea colloquy, the parties’ statements about the plea terms, the applicable law on cocaine weight (including the Ohio Supreme Court’s reconsideration of Gonzales), counsel performance standards, and the statutory/precedent requirements for imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no-contest plea was entered and accepted | Court: record shows colloquy and acceptance of no-contest pleas | Rodriquez: he never actually entered a plea of no contest | Held: trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and plea was accepted; assignment overruled |
| Whether plea was knowing/intelligent re: cocaine weight (Gonzales issue) | State: at plea time parties understood filler could be included in weight; later Gonzales initially suggested otherwise but was vacated on reconsideration | Rodriquez: plea was not knowing because parties misunderstood whether actual cocaine weight (excluding filler) was required | Held: Ohio Supreme Court vacated the earlier Gonzales holding; current law counts total weight (including filler); plea was knowing — overruled |
| Whether the State breached a plea agreement by recommending sentence | Rodriquez: State violated plea terms by making a sentencing recommendation | State: there was no agreement on sentence (open sentencing), so recommendation was permissible | Held: no sentencing agreement existed; State free to recommend; assignment overruled |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance (general + Gonzales-related) | Rodriquez: counsel failed to object to State’s recommendation and failed to raise the cocaine-weight issue | State/Court: no substantial violation of counsel’s duties; no prejudice; Gonzales issue moot after reconsideration | Held: counsel not ineffective on either ground; assignments overruled |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed | Rodriquez: trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings at sentencing | Court: sentencing transcript and entry show findings that consecutive terms were necessary, not disproportionate, and supported by offender’s history and drug amounts | Held: court made required findings (adequately reflected in record and entry); consecutive sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (standards for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state required consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them into the entry)