State v. Toles, 2020 Ohio 4267

Marcus Toles was indicted on eight counts of drug trafficking (two near a juvenile) and one count of drug possession; jury convicted him on all nine counts.
Proceedings featured two counsel: Jeffrey Hunter (original), who obtained one continuance then withdrew; Jesse Stacy was appointed 19 days before trial.
Toles disclosed potential defense witnesses at the last minute (over several days up to the morning of trial); Hunter had earlier reported similar last‑minute witness claims that proved unhelpful.
Stacy moved for a continuance on the morning trial began to locate newly disclosed witnesses; the trial court denied the motion, citing Toles’ chronic last‑minute disclosures and prior warning.
After conviction the court imposed an aggregate five‑year prison term (including consecutive terms for offenses near a juvenile and findings of organized criminal activity and high recidivism risk).
Toles appealed, raising: (1) denial of continuance, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s timing on a continuance, and (3) sentence not supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Denial was an abuse of discretion because new counsel had only 19 days and learned of witnesses days before trial	Toles caused the delay by repeatedly disclosing witnesses last‑minute; court previously warned him and had granted one continuance already	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court reasonably denied continuance given defendant’s conduct
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Stacy was ineffective for not seeking a continuance earlier to investigate witnesses	No prejudice shown; record does not indicate an earlier motion would have been granted	Claim rejected — no ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Sentence challenged as unsupported	Sentence (aggregate 5 years) improperly relied on an outdated PSI and misapplied mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12	Court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, imposed postrelease control, and stayed within statutory ranges; PSI update discretionary	Sentence affirmed — review limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law

State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (trial court has broad discretion over continuances; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard involves more than error of judgment)
State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002) (factors to guide continuance decisions: length of delay, prior continuances, convenience, reasons, defendant contribution)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is limited to specified findings or whether sentence is contrary to law)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (clarifies limits on appellate review of consecutive sentences and relation to R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)