[Cite as State v. Smith,
2025-Ohio-3113.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2025-01-008
: OPINION AND
- vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY
: 9/2/2025
MARTEL JAYCI PATE SMITH, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 24CR41386
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy J. McKenna, for appellant.
OPINION
PIPER, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Martel Jayci Pate Smith, appeals his conviction in the Warren
County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to five counts of second-degree
felony trafficking in drugs and two counts of third-degree felony trafficking in drugs for
which the trial court sentenced him to serve a jointly recommended and agreed upon
sentence of five to seven-and-one-half years in prison. For the reasons outlined below,
Warren CA2025-01-008
we affirm Smith's conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 12, 2024, the Warren County Grand Jury returned a 14-count
indictment charging Smith with seven counts of either first, second, or third-degree felony
trafficking in drugs, six counts of fifth-degree felony possession of criminal tools, and one
count of first-degree felony possession of drugs. Smith was subsequently arraigned and
entered a not guilty plea to all 14 charges.
{¶ 3} On January 8, 2025, Smith entered into a plea agreement with the State.
This plea agreement required Smith to plead guilty to five counts of second-degree felony
trafficking in drugs and two counts of third-degree felony trafficking in drugs, with a jointly
recommended and agreed upon sentence of five to seven-and-one half years in prison.
In exchange for Smith's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other seven charges.
Following the necessary plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Smith's guilty plea and, on
January 15, 2025, sentenced Smith to the jointly recommended and agreed upon five to
seven-and-one-half years in prison.
{¶ 4} On January 23, 2025, Smith filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing, on
July 16, 2025, Smith's appeal was submitted to this court for consideration. Smith's appeal
now properly before this court for decision, Smith has raised two assignments of error for
review.
Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 5} THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY
THE COURT.
{¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, Smith argues the trial court erred by
sentencing him to the jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence of five to seven-
and-one-half years in prison. To support this claim, Smith argues that rather than that
-2-
Warren CA2025-01-008
jointly recommended sentence, the record supports the trial court sentencing him to the
"minimum time, concurrent" sentence of two to three years in prison. This is because,
according to Smith, he provided "extensive allocation of mitigation that warranted the
imposition of an even lower sentence than recommended," which included his attending
both high school and college, his rather difficult childhood, and his lack of any prior
criminal record. Therefore, because the charges for which he pled guilty "were not the
worst form of the offense, in the sense that all of the buys were done by undercover
officers, and thus the drugs did not 'hit the streets' and someone used them," Smith
argues that this matter should be reversed so that he could be resentenced to the
"minimum term," with all counts running concurrently.
{¶ 7} However, because the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case was
a jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence that was authorized by law, Smith's
first assignment of error is not subject to review by this court in accordance with R.C.
2953.08(D)(1). Pursuant to that statute, "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not
subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been
recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed
by a sentencing judge." Therefore, because "this court cannot review a jointly
recommended sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) when the defendant and the state both
agree to the sentence, the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and the sentence is
authorized by law," State v. Frazier, 2024-Ohio-2114, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.), the trial court's
decision to sentence Smith to the jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence of five
to seven-and-one-half years in prison is not reviewable by this court pursuant to R.C.
2953.08(D)(1). Accordingly, Smith's first assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 8} THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL
-3-
Warren CA2025-01-008
COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1, OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.
{¶ 9} In his second assignment of error, Smith argues he received ineffective
assistance of counsel when his trial counsel "failed to further negotiate with the state for
a lower sentence." We disagree.
{¶ 10} "The standard by which we review claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel is well established." State v. Carter, 1995-Ohio-104, ¶ 41. "To establish
ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that counsel's performance was
deficient, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant." State v.
Kyles,
2024-Ohio-998, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.), citing Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668,
687-688 (1984). "Courts determine deficient performance by asking whether counsel's
conduct 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.'" State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-
5752, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.), quoting
Strickland at 688. On the other hand, to establish prejudice,
"[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
Strickland
at 694. "A defendant's failure to make a sufficient showing of either prong of the Strickland
inquiry is fatal to his claim of ineffective assistance." State v. Lloyd,
2022-Ohio-4259, ¶
31.
{¶ 11} As noted above, Smith argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel
when his trial counsel "failed to further negotiate with the state for a lower sentence."
Smith, however, had no right to receive a plea offer from the State. See State v. Fletcher,
2021-Ohio-1515, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). The State also had no obligation to make a plea offer to
Smith.
Id. Nevertheless, as the record indicates, Smith's trial counsel was able to
successfully negotiate with the State for a plea offer that significantly decreased Smith's
exposure had he decided to take the matter to trial. This ultimately resulted in Smith's trial
-4-
Warren CA2025-01-008
counsel obtaining for Smith the State's best and final plea offer, an offer that allowed
Smith to plead guilty to five counts of second-degree felony trafficking in drugs and two
counts of third-degree felony trafficking in drugs, with a jointly recommended sentence of
five to seven-and-one half years in prison, in exchange for the State dismissing the other
seven charges levied against him.
{¶ 12} The fact that Smith may have wanted his trial counsel to further negotiate
with the State for an even lesser sentence does not mean the State was required to
engage in such negotiations. This is because, as noted above, it is the State, not the
defendant, who makes the plea offer. This includes the State deciding whether to include
a recommended sentence as part of its plea offer. It is the defendant who then chooses
whether to accept the State's plea offer or take the matter to trial. Therefore, because the
record indicates that Smith's trial counsel successfully negotiated with the State to obtain
for Smith the State's best and final plea offer, Smith has failed to establish that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel "failed to further negotiate with
the state for a lower sentence." Accordingly, Smith's second assignment of error is also
overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 13} For the reasons outlined above, and having now overruled Smith's two
assignments of error, Smith's appeal from his conviction following his guilty plea to five
counts of second-degree felony trafficking in drugs and two counts of third-degree felony
trafficking in drugs for which the trial court sentenced him to serve a jointly recommended
and agreed upon sentence of five to seven-and-one-half years in prison is denied.
{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.
-5-
Warren CA2025-01-008
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is
the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and
Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-6-
