State v. Wood, 2011 Ohio 6405

Background

Defendant-appellant Brian Wood, Jr. was convicted by no contest plea of aggravated burglary with firearm specs, two kidnapping counts with firearm specs, and complicity to commit burglary; aggregate sentence 26 years; pretrial and suppression rulings challenged on appeal.
Victims Haupt and his stepson Jackson were bound, gagged, and robbed of about $30,000 in a Summitville Recycling residence in Columbiana County on Sept. 21, 2009.
Wood was initially found incompetent, restored to competency, and various pretrial motions (continuance, change of venue, investigator) were denied before trial.
Detective Walker interviewed Wood in December 2009 about the Summitville burglary after a Brown case inquiry; Wood later waived Miranda rights and gave statements.
Wood pled no contest on the day of trial without a plea bargain and requested immediate sentencing; the trial court imposed a 26-year aggregate sentence with firearm specs mandatory and consecutive to other counts.
Appellate counsel filed a no merit brief and moved to withdraw; Wood filed a pro se submission asserting issues which the court reviewed despite the Anders/Toney framework.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pretrial suppression ruling validity	Wood argues the statements were improperly admitted.	Wood claims an implied Proffer Agreement prevented use of statements.	suppression ruling affirmed; argument deemed insufficient due to record limitations.
Denial of continuance and investigator appointment	State sought efficiency; continuances and investigator needed.	Defense needed more time and resources.	no abuse of discretion; no appealable issue.
Plea compliance with Crim.R. 11	Plea informed of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights.	Some nonconstitutional advisements were lacking.	plea substantially compliant; knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel provided inadequate discovery and strategy.	Multiple attorneys with conflicts; ineffective altogether.	no meritorious claims; performance not deficient under Strickland.
Sentencing legality and discretion	Sentence exceeds permissible range or misapplies guidelines.	Court abused discretion or misapplied factors.	sentence within statutory limits; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R. 11 advisements; threshold for knowing and voluntary plea)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (mandatory considerations in sentencing and violations of statutory guidelines)
State v. Gratz, 7th Dist. No. 08MA101, 2009-Ohio-695 (2009-Ohio-695) (standards for sentencing review: clearly and convincingly contrary to law; abuse of discretion)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (Crim.R. 11 advisements; analysis of nonconstitutional rights)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (review of plea colloquy and advisements)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (continuance factors and abuse of discretion framework)
State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (1990) (continuance rulings; discretion standard)
State v. Trummer, 7th Dist. No. 96CO97, 1998 (1998) (considerations for appointment of investigator; pretrial decisions)
State v. Pollock, Sept. 24, 1993 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard for investigator denial)
State v. Oliver, 2008-Ohio-6371 (2008) (record-based review; extrinsic evidence not admissible on direct appeal)
State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 08AP–719 (2009) (evidence outside record cannot support ineffective assistance claim)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (no-merit brief procedures for frivolous appeals)
State v. Herring, 7th Dist. No. 06JE8, 2007-Ohio-3174 (2007) (Strickland prejudice principle applied)