State v. Russell, 2012 Ohio 6051

Lyons and Morgan met Russell at a gas station to buy heroin; he led them to a nearby residential area.
Russell pointed a gun into their car and demanded all of their money.
Lyons grabbed the gun, and a struggle occurred while the car attempted to flee.
Russell began shooting at the car; a bullet through the headrest struck Morgan in the neck, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down.
Russell was indicted in January 2012 on multiple counts of aggravated robbery and felonious assault with firearm specifications.
At sentencing, the trial court merged offenses and imposed a 12-year prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of defendant's plea	State argues plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary	Russell challenges plea validity	Plea valid; knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered
Reasonableness of sentence	State contends within statutory range and proper consideration	Russell argues misapplication of sentencing standards	Sentence within range; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (requirement of knowing, intelligent waiver for guilty pleas)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (indigent review for Anders-type pro se briefing in criminal appeals)
State v. Barker, 183 Ohio App.3d 414 (2d Dist. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion in imposing within-range sentences)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing framework and no mandatory post-Foster findings)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (review of felony sentences; standard for whether sentence is contrary to law)
State v. Bray, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010CA14 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentence)