State v. Wade, 2020 Ohio 5399

Defendant Jordyn Wade was 16 at the time of a robbery in which his codefendant shot five people, killing four; Wade was convicted as an aider and abettor of 4 aggravated murders and related felonies.
Trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 172.5 years to life (functionally life without parole).
This court (Wade I) vacated the sentence and remanded because the trial court failed to expressly consider Wade's youth as a mitigating factor under Miller and Ohio's State v. Long.
On remand the trial court held a brief resentencing, stated it had considered Wade's youth and related factors (juvenile record, gang involvement, lack of remorse, lack of abusive home), and reimposed the same aggregate sentence.
Wade appealed, arguing (1) the sentence is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment and Ohio Constitution, and (2) resentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not presenting mitigation (e.g., a mitigation or psychological expert).
The appellate court affirmed: it found the trial court adequately considered youth under Long/Miller and found no demonstrable Strickland prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to obtain a mitigation expert (such off-record claims belong in postconviction proceedings).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Wade's Argument	Held
Whether the imposed 172.5-year-to-life sentence for a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment/Ohio Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment	State: Trial court complied with Long/Miller and expressly considered Wade's youth before reimposing the sentence	Wade: Sentence is functionally life-without-parole for a juvenile and unconstitutional because youth was not meaningfully weighed	Court: Trial court complied; consideration of youth on the record was sufficient, sentence affirmed
Whether resentencing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present mitigation expert testimony	State: No prejudice shown; no record of what off‑record expert testimony would be, so Strickland prejudice not established	Wade: Counsel was deficient for not seeking a mitigation/psychological expert at resentencing	Court: Even if deficient, Wade cannot show prejudice on direct appeal; such factual, off‑record claims belong in a postconviction petition

State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478 (Ohio 2014) (applying Miller: youth is a mitigating factor and must be considered at sentencing)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; youth must be considered)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller requirements apply retroactively)
State v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 557 (Ohio 2016) (consecutive juvenile terms may be the functional equivalent of life without parole)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)