State v. Tate

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 2067

Syllabus

SENTENCING — VOIDABLE — R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) — AGREED SENTENCE — INVITED ERROR — R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) — PLAIN ERROR — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE — MOTION TO DISMISS — SPEEDY TRIAL: Where a trial court has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, any error in sentencing renders the sentence voidable, rather than void. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of an agreed sentence that is not authorized by law. The invited-error doctrine does not bar an appellant's challenge to an agreed sentence that was not authorized by law. Pursuant to former R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b), absent the applicability of former R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), a trial court may not impose more than one prison term for firearm specifications imposed pursuant to former R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) where the underlying felonies that the specifications accompanied were committed as part of the same act or transaction. Where the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications because the underlying felonies were committed as part of the same act or transaction, and where defendant failed to object below, the error was not subject to reversal as plain error because defendant failed to establish prejudice and because the record did not set forth exceptional circumstances demonstrating that notice of the error was necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds where defendant failed to show that the motion would have been successful and the case likely would have been dismissed had the motion been filed.