State v. Tate

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Tony Tate’s convictions and agreed 11-year sentence. The court held that the invited-error doctrine does not bar review of an agreed sentence that is unauthorized by law, but concluded that imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications did not constitute plain error warranting relief. The court also rejected Tate’s ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to file a speedy-trial motion.

Holdings

1. The invited-error doctrine does not bar a defendant from challenging an agreed sentence that was not authorized by law. Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), an agreed sentence is insulated from appellate review only when it is authorized by law.
2. Because the trial court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, any sentencing error rendered the sentence voidable rather than void.
3. The trial court erred by imposing more than one prison term on the firearm specifications because the underlying aggravated-assault felonies were committed as part of the same act or transaction, and no party asserted that the statutory exception in former R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) applied.
4. The sentencing error was obvious, but it did not warrant reversal as plain error because Tate failed to establish prejudice and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances requiring correction to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
5. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds because the challenged continuances were properly chargeable to Tate and a motion to dismiss would not have been successful.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an agreed sentence that is not authorized by law may be challenged on appeal despite the invited-error doctrine and R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
2. Whether former R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) prohibited the trial court from imposing more than one prison term for firearm specifications accompanying felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction.
3. Whether the trial court's unlawful imposition of consecutive sentences on the two firearm specifications constituted reversible plain error.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss based on an alleged speedy-trial violation.

Disposition

affirmed