State v. Stanley, 2012 Ohio 2802

Defendant Paul Stanley was indicted on three counts of gross sexual imposition involving two children under 13.
He pled guilty to two counts; the third count was dismissed under a plea agreement.
The trial court sentenced him on August 9, 2011, to consecutive five-year terms.
The court later advised him of his right to appeal, bringing him back in for that purpose.
Stanley appeals, challenging the validity of his plea, effectiveness of counsel, and sentencing authority and procedures.
The court denied relief on all four assignments of error and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered?	Stanley claims the plea was not knowing or voluntary due to a belief in a two-year sentence.	Record lacks a clear, on-record sentencing promise; status conference not part of record.	First assignment overruled; plea entering was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Did Stanley receive ineffective assistance of counsel?	Counsel failed to secure mitigating evidence and possible withdrawal of pleas.	Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.	Second assignment overruled; no demonstrated prejudice or deficient performance established.
Did the trial court have authority to impose consecutive sentences?	Guided by R.C. 2929.41(A) requiring concurrent terms.	Consecutive sentences were improper under prior law.	Third assignment overruled; court had discretion under prior law; HB 86 not retroactive to this case.
Did the court properly consider sentencing factors, including recidivism and resources?	Court did not address R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors.	Court considered factors during sentencing; statute HB 86 applied post-sentencing.	Fourth assignment overruled; court addressed relevant factors and HB 86 timing limited applicability.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (authorized discretionary sentencing within statutory ranges; consecutive/concurrent choice preserved)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 174 (2008-Ohio-1983) (discretion to order consecutive sentences post-Foster)
State v. Buford, 2012-Ohio-1948 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2012) (HB 86 amended sentencing; not retroactive to Stanley as sentenced before effective date)
State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (1992) (prescribes standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland standard applied)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel (prejudice and deficiency))