State v. Duncan

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 6740

Syllabus

Ineffective assistance of counsel knowingly intelligently voluntarily sex offender sentence consecutive prejudice deficient court cost nunc pro tunc no-contact order findings record clear and convincing. The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)'s maximum-penalty-advisement requirement. The defendant did not establish that he would not have entered his plea had he been more thoroughly informed of the details of the sex-offender-classification scheme. The trial court made the necessary findings for imposing consecutive sentences and the findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The court erred by imposing court costs and fines in the sentencing journal entry when they were waived on the record. The trial court was not permitted to issue a no-contact order when it imposed a prison term on the relevant offense however, there is no reversible error because the no-contact order was not included in the sentencing journal entry.