Background
Tony Tate was indicted in 2020 on multiple counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications, carrying a concealed weapon, having a weapon under disability, and tampering with evidence, arising from a shooting that injured three people including an innocent bystander. After years of delays — including competency evaluations, multiple counsel changes, and over a dozen continuances — Tate pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated assault with firearm specifications and carrying a concealed weapon, receiving an agreed aggregate sentence.
On appeal, Tate argued the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications where the underlying felonies arose from the same act or transaction under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds given the extensive delays.
The Court’s Holding
The First District made an important threshold holding: the invited-error doctrine does not bar a defendant from challenging an agreed sentence that was not authorized by law. The court recognized that a sentence not authorized by law is void, and a defendant cannot agree to a void sentence. This distinguished the case from situations where defendants merely complain about the terms of a sentence they agreed to accept.
On the merits, the court found the trial court did err by imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications accompanying offenses that arose from the same act or transaction, contrary to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). However, because Tate failed to object below, the court reviewed for plain error. Under the plain error standard, even an obvious error requires the defendant to show the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for the error. The court concluded that because the sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement, Tate could not show the outcome would have been different — the State could have simply structured the deal differently.
On the speedy-trial claim, the court found trial counsel was not ineffective because the delays were largely attributable to Tate himself, including his requests for continuances, counsel changes, and competency evaluations. The record did not support a meritorious speedy-trial motion.
Key Takeaways
- The invited-error doctrine does not bar challenges to agreed sentences that are not authorized by law under Ohio precedent; a void sentence cannot be ratified by agreement.
- R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) prohibits consecutive sentences on multiple firearm specifications when the underlying offenses arise from the same act or transaction.
- Plain error review in the context of an agreed sentence is particularly difficult to establish, as the defendant must show the outcome would have been different absent the error.
- Delays attributable to the defendant — including continuances, counsel changes, and competency evaluations — toll the speedy-trial clock.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for Ohio criminal practitioners on multiple fronts. The holding that the invited-error doctrine does not apply to unauthorized sentences preserves an important avenue for post-plea challenges. However, the practical difficulty of satisfying plain error review in the agreed-sentence context means defense attorneys should raise firearm specification merger issues before entering the plea. The speedy-trial analysis also provides a useful roadmap for calculating tolling events in cases with complex procedural histories.