State v. Tatom, 2018 Ohio 5143

Victim A.D. was assaulted on February 13, 1996; DNA from a condom found at the scene matched Roshawn L. Tatom when tested in 2014.
In 2015 a grand jury indicted Tatom for kidnapping and rape; in 2017 he pleaded guilty to felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11).
The plea hearing included a stipulated factual basis describing forcible attack and subsequent loss of consciousness; sentencing occurred September 21, 2017, with a six-year prison term imposed.
On appeal Tatom raised three assignments of error: (1) trial court applied current sentencing law instead of law at time of offense, (2) retroactive application of the statutory definition of "child" violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to raise those challenges.
The court reviewed the first two issues for plain error (Tatom conceded forfeiture) and applied Ohio statutory construction principles and controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should apply sentencing law in effect at time of offense or current law (H.B. 86 reductions)	State: H.B. 86 applies to unsentenced offenders and reduces potential sentences; R.C. 1.58(B) directs application of reduced penalties	Tatom: The older sentencing scheme could yield earlier release via parole; thus current law did not actually reduce his punishment	Court: Applied H.B. 86 and R.C. 1.58(B); no plain error — reduced sentencing provisions apply
Whether retroactive application of amendments to definition of "child" violated the Ex Post Facto Clause	State: Applying amendments does not meaningfully increase punishment for this offender; precedent allows retrospective application when changes reduce or do not increase punishment	Tatom: Removal of juvenile protections increases possible punishment by exposing him to adult prosecution; this is an ex post facto violation	Court: Followed State v. Walls — retrospective application did not create more than a speculative increased punishment; no ex post facto violation
Whether counsel was ineffective for not raising the above issues	State: Precedent foreclosed the arguments; raising them would not likely change outcome	Tatom: Counsel erred by failing to preserve these arguments	Court: Under Strickland/Bradley, no reasonable probability of different result given controlling precedent; ineffective-assistance claim fails

State v. Thomas, 148 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2016) (H.B. 86 sentencing provisions apply to unsentenced offenders when they reduce potential sentences)
State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (retrospective juvenile-law amendments do not violate Ex Post Facto Clause when any increase in punishment is speculative)
State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2014) (forfeiture of issues not raised in trial court except for plain error review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland framework in Ohio criminal cases)