State v. Sheppard
2011 Ohio 3516
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Sheppard pleaded no contest to a single count of theft from an elderly person, a third-degree felony, in Medina County.
- At sentencing, the victim Lakowski testified alleging lies by Sheppard and that she stole from Lakowski; defense did not object.
- The trial court sentenced Sheppard to a one-year prison term.
- Sheppard appeals raising two assignments of error: ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing error.
- The appellate court applies Strickland and Mundt standards, notes the presentence report was not in the appellate record, and reviews the claimed error accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not requesting continuance | Sheppard argues failure to request continuance prejudiced her. | State argues no proven new material facts and no prejudice. | Not established; assignment overruled. |
| Sentence contrary to law due to new material facts | Sheppard contends sentencing facts violated R.C. 2930.14(B) and were improper. | State maintains no clear violation given record gaps and that Kalish standards apply. | Not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007-Ohio-4836) (two-part Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (sentence within range not clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
- State v. Hultz, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0043 (2008-Ohio-4153) (review of presentence report for sentencing discretion)