State v. Wertman, 2019 Ohio 7

David M. Wertman was indicted for second-degree Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity and pled guilty to Attempted Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity (fourth-degree felony).
He was sentenced to three years community control (plus fines, forfeiture, license suspension) with a possible 18-month sanction for violations.
After an initial brief sanction for an October 2016 overdose admission, a 2018 community-control-violation complaint alleged multiple breaches including marijuana use/possession, out-of-state travel, firearm possession, failure to complete community service, and curfew violation; Wertman admitted to several marijuana-related counts pursuant to a plea deal and others were dismissed.
At the June 2018 sanction hearing, the trial court relied on the APA recommendation and imposed six months at a community-based correctional facility and 30 days in county jail pending admission; the court referenced dismissed/uncharged conduct (out-of-state travel, attempt to bring firecrackers into a capital case).
Wertman appealed, raising three assignments: (1) sentencing contrary to law, (2) violation of due process at sentencing, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court had stayed execution of the sanction pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wertman)	Held
Whether the trial court improperly considered dismissed/uncharged conduct at sentencing	Court may consider such conduct as part of sentencing discretion	Court improperly relied on dismissed/uncharged allegations without giving opportunity to confront or present evidence	Affirmed: trial court may consider dismissed/uncharged charges and did not abuse discretion
Whether sentencing violated due process because defendant lacked opportunity to present evidence or confront accusers	A guilty plea limits collateral attacks on pre-plea rights; sanctions followed admitted violations	Defendant contends he was denied due process at sanction hearing	Rejected: plea constituted break; no voluntary-plea attack; no due-process violation shown
Whether counsel was ineffective by conceding failure to notify re: prescription	State: sanctions resulted from defendant’s admissions; no evidence counsel’s statement caused prejudice	Defendant: counsel misstated or conceded notification issue despite proof to the contrary, causing prejudice	Rejected: defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Lockhart
Whether the sanction exceeded trial court’s authority under community-control rules	State: sanction was within the permitted range for violations	Defendant: sanction was contrary to law	Rejected: court acted within discretion and imposed permissible sanctions

State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (1989) (trial court may consider dismissed charges at sentencing)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (1992) (guilty plea limits collateral challenges to pre-plea constitutional claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice analysis in ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)