State v. Wood, 2020 Ohio 422

Appellant Dustyn T. Wood and three companions went to an apartment to buy methamphetamine; an argument ensued and Wood shot two occupants (Aaron Kirk and Joshua Sollars).
Victims survived but required extended hospital care; Wood and companions fled; Wood was later arrested.
Indictment: two counts of attempted murder (with repeat violent offender and firearm specifications), two counts of felonious assault (with same specs), one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of having weapons while under disability.
Court proceedings: Wood pled not guilty; he requested bifurcation — the bench tried the weapons-under-disability count and specifications, the jury tried the remaining counts.
Verdict and sentence: jury and bench found Wood guilty on all counts/specs; after merger, court imposed an aggregate prison term of 39 years and 9 months.
Appeal presents three assignments: (1) challenge to maximum consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12/2929.14(C)(4); (2) claim trial should have been continued or mistrial declared over testimony referencing ballistic testing that defense had not received; (3) claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	State's Argument	Wood's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by imposing maximum consecutive sentences without proper statutory consideration	Court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in entry	Trial court failed to properly consider statutory factors and erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences	Affirmed: sentencing within statutory range; court made required findings and record supports them
Whether the court should have continued the trial or declared a mistrial when a witness referenced ballistic testing the defense had not received	Any error was harmless; absence of report did not prejudice defendant because multiple witnesses placed Wood as shooter and self-defense was unsupported	Testimony about unproduced ballistics report prejudiced the defense and warranted continuance or mistrial	Overruled: defendant waived all but plain error; no plain error shown and outcome would not have changed
Whether Wood was denied effective assistance of counsel	Defense strategy (cross-examination, impeachment, not calling Wood) was reasonable; no prejudice shown	Counsel lacked a successful strategy, failed to cross-examine effectively, prevented Wood from testifying, and failed to seek presentence investigation or more time	Overruled: counsel's performance fell within reasonable trial strategy; Wood failed to show deficient performance or prejudice

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentencing findings at hearing and in entry)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2004) (trial tactics and debatable strategies do not establish ineffective assistance)