State v. West
106 N.E.3d 96
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- William Troy West pled guilty (May 2015) to two second-degree felonies: sale of an unregistered security (R.C. 1707.44(C)(1)) and fraudulent acts/practices in the sale of securities (R.C. 1707.44(G)) arising from sales of unregistered promissory notes for North Shore Energy, LLC that raised > $2.2 million from 18 investors. 16 sales occurred in Butler County, Ohio.
- Plea agreement (sealed) required West to pay $2,251,712.26 restitution; sentencing was held in abeyance to allow legitimate efforts to raise restitution and included a provision allowing withdrawal of pleas if full restitution was paid.
- At sentencing (June 5, 2017), West urged mitigation and repayment efforts (submitted $54,500); victims described extensive financial harm; the state emphasized the seriousness and lack of restitution progress.
- The trial court imposed concurrent six-year prison terms on West (noting heightened culpability for failure to disclose ongoing Texas litigation) and ordered joint-and-several restitution of $1,942,239.79; West appealed.
- On appeal West raised: (1) ineffective/conflicted assistance from counsel who jointly represented co-defendant Schaper and North Shore Energy, and (2) due process/equal protection violation because the harsher sentence was tied to his inability to pay restitution before sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint representation of co-defendants created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance at sentencing | State: Counsel’s joint representation was not shown to create an actual adverse conflict; counsel pursued mitigation focused on remorse and restitution efforts | West: Joint representation prevented counsel from arguing West was less culpable than co-defendant Schaper and from probing/coaxing testimony distinguishing roles | Court: No actual conflict. Relative-culpability strategy was not viable given plea admissions and record; counsel’s mitigation strategy was reasonable and not constrained by loyalty to co-defendant. Assignment overruled. |
| Whether sentencing West more harshly because he could not pay agreed restitution before sentencing violated due process/equal protection (Bearden challenge) | State: Court imposed sentence under statutory sentencing scheme for second-degree felonies after considering R.C. 2929.11–.12; West bargained for better terms if restitution were paid and cannot now repudiate that bargain | West: State treated restitution as the "appropriate remedy" and promised lesser punishment if repaid; inability to pay (due to loss in Texas litigation) led to longer sentence impermissibly based on indigence | Court: Bearden inapplicable. West was being sentenced (not having probation revoked). He entered a negotiated plea that conditioned benefits on restitution (invited-error). Court imposed an unconditional statutory sentence; future judicial-release consideration tied to restitution does not make the sentence conditional. Assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest standard: reversal required where actual conflict adversely affected performance)
- State v. Gillard, 78 Ohio St.3d 548 (actual-conflict analysis and burden when no contemporaneous objection)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (probation revocation for failure to pay requires inquiry into willfulness and bona fide efforts)
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (cannot imprison beyond statutory ceiling because of indigence)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (cannot automatically convert fines to jail solely due to indigence)
- State v. Manross, 40 Ohio St.3d 180 (better practice to advise co-defendants of separate counsel but no constitutional mandate)
- State v. Dillon, 74 Ohio St.3d 166 (discusses joint representation and conflict principles)