State v. Williams, 2014 Ohio 1618

In Jan. 2012 Louis Williams and co-defendant Bennie Brent were charged after Demarco Clayton was shot; counts included aggravated robbery and felonious assault with firearm specifications.
In Sept. 2012 Williams pleaded guilty to an amended felonious assault count (firearm specs deleted); other counts were nolled.
Presentence report reflected dispute about who fired the shot; victim Clayton told investigators both men pointed guns and later could not ID the shooter; report also stated Clayton was "adamant" Williams "set him up."
At sentencing defense counsel argued Williams was not the shooter, had a minimal record, cooperated, called for help after the shooting, and requested community control; the prosecutor reported Clayton later said Williams may have set up the robbery and that both men might have had guns.
The judge held an unrecorded sidebar to "refresh [his] memory," then imposed a three-year prison term (with 142 days credit) and indicated judicial-release consideration after two years.
Williams appealed, raising: (1) trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and imposed an excessive sentence; (2) ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to preserve issues stemming from an unrecorded sidebar; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to preserve a disproportionality/sentencing disparity claim.

Issue	State's Argument	Williams' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, rendering the sentence contrary to law	Journal entry states the court considered required factors; sentence within statutory range	Court did not orally state consideration of statutory factors and therefore failed to weigh them	Court held sentence not contrary to law: journal entry sufficed and sentence within statutory range
Whether the three-year term was excessive/constitutionally disproportionate	Sentence is within statutory range and victim suffered serious physical harm	Three years was excessive and disproportionate given Williams' role and limited record	Court held sentence not excessive or unconstitutional; within permissible range and proportionate to harm
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting recording of the sidebar (preserving issue)	No reversible error; counsel experienced and sidebar omission harmless given presentence report and victim statements	Failure to record sidebar deprived appellate review and preserved error	Court held no prejudice; failure to record was harmless and not ineffective assistance
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve sentencing-disproportionality claim (compare to co-defendant)	Counsel did argue disparity and sought lesser sentence; judge assigned equal responsibility	Counsel failed to preserve or press disproportionality adequately	Court held counsel was not ineffective and the sentence was not disproportionate

Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (post-Foster sentencing principles)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Cruel and unusual punishment — proportionality analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (Two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Adopts Strickland in Ohio)
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1955) (Strong presumption counsel s conduct is reasonable)
State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (Ohio 2008) (A sentence within statutory terms generally not cruel and unusual)
State v. Hamann, 90 Ohio App.3d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (Gross disproportionality standard for cruel and unusual punishments)