State v. Smith, 2013 Ohio 232

John Smith appealed convictions for trafficking in drugs following a guilty plea.
The trial court accepted the plea after Crim.R. 11(C) colloquy and the defendant stated understanding and voluntariness.
Smith underwent competency evaluation; clinical/forensic psychologist found him competent to stand trial.
In exchange for pleading guilty to two trafficking counts, remaining charges were dismissed; sentences of 12 months and 3 years were imposed consecutively.
Smith challenges: the plea was not voluntary, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper consecutive sentencing.
The court concluded the plea was knowing and voluntary, counsel was not ineffective, and Foster controlled the absence of required findings for consecutive sentencing at that time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made?	Smith	Smith	Yes; Crim.R. 11(C) satisfied; waiver understood.
Was counsel ineffective for not adequately explaining proceedings?	Smith	Smith	No; counsel explained rights and proceedings; responses showed understanding.
Was consecutive sentencing proper without findings under Foster?	Smith	Smith	Yes; Foster controlled; no mandated findings at that time.

State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011-Ohio-4130) (plea must be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (rights waivers in guilty plea)
State v. Eckler, 2009-Ohio-7064 (2009) (totality of the circumstances review under Crim.R. 11(C))
State v. Jodziewicz, 1999 WL 266679 (1999) (de novo review of Crim.R. 11(C) proceedings)
State v. Vieney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R. 11(C) compliance entry by court)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (Struck down consecutive-sentencing findings; discretion restored)
State v. Bates, 2008-Ohio-1983 (2008) (revisits Foster framework on later amendments)