State v. Rogan

2025 Ohio 2468
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 11, 2025
Docket2024-CA-29
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 2468 (State v. Rogan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Rogan, 2025 Ohio 2468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rogan, 2025-Ohio-2468.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2024-CA-29 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CR 123 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas HERSHEL EARL ROGAN, III : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 11, 2025, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

Epley, P.J.; Tucker, J.; and Hanseman, J., concur.

For the court,

[[Applied Signature]] CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, PRESIDING JUDGE -2-

OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2024-CA-29

ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Attorney for Appellant JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Hershel Earl Rogan III pled guilty in the Champaign County Court of Common

Pleas to one count of possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony, and one count of

aggravated trafficking in drugs, a third-degree felony. The court imposed an aggregate

agreed prison sentence of 36 months. Rogan appeals from his conviction, claiming that his

trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by telling him that he would be released from

prison in 18 months if he accepted the plea agreement. For the following reasons, the trial

court’s judgment is affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On August 29, 2024, Urbana police responded to a disturbance between Rogan

and a female acquaintance. Rogan revealed to the officers that he had a BB gun that

looked like a firearm. The officers also discovered that he had a drug pipe underneath his

arm hidden in a towel. When the drug pipe was found, Rogan fled on foot and dropped

some methamphetamine. After he was apprehended, several drug-related items were

found on him. The woman told police officers that she was engaged in drug trafficking with

Rogan; information extracted from Rogan’s phone corroborated that he was involved in drug

trafficking. Rogan had previously been involved in drug trafficking and had served four prior

prison sentences.

{¶ 3} On September 4, 2024, Rogan was indicted on two counts of possession of -3- cocaine, two counts of aggravated possession of drugs, one count of aggravated trafficking

in drugs, and one count of tampering with evidence. Rogan initially pled not guilty to the

charges.

{¶ 4} Approximately five weeks later, Rogan pled guilty to one count of possession of

cocaine (Count 1) and aggravated trafficking in drugs (Count 5). In exchange for the pleas,

the State agreed to dismiss the remaining four counts. The plea agreement further

provided that the parties would waive a presentence investigation, that they would jointly

recommend a sentence of 36 months in prison, that Rogan would pay any court costs and

court-appointed counsel fees, and that four items of property listed on State’s Exhibit 1 would

be returned to Rogan or his representative and the rest would be forfeited.

{¶ 5} The trial court accepted Rogan’s guilty plea and proceeded immediately to

sentencing. It imposed 12 months in prison on Count 1 and a mandatory prison term of 36

months on Count 5, to be served concurrently. The court ordered Rogan to pay concurrent

fines of $250 (Count 1) and $500 (Count 5), for a total of $500, plus court costs. The

property listed on State’s Exhibit 1 was forfeited. A written judgment of conviction was filed

the following day.

{¶ 6} Rogan did not timely appeal, but we have permitted him to pursue a delayed

appeal. He raises one assignment of error.

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

{¶ 7} In his assignment of error, Rogan claims that his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by telling him that he would receive 18 months in prison if he pled

guilty.

{¶ 8} To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate

both that (1) trial counsel’s conduct was deficient, and (2) trial counsel’s deficient -4- performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State

v. Lloyd, 2022-Ohio-4259, ¶ 15. The “benchmark” for determining ineffectiveness is

“whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process

that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Lloyd at ¶ 15, quoting

Strickland at 686.

{¶ 9} Trial counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls below an objective standard of

reasonableness. Strickland at 687; Lloyd at ¶ 16. The first prong “requires showing that

counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed

the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland at 687; State v. Dennis, 2022-Ohio-2888,

¶ 37 (2d Dist.). Hindsight is not permitted to distort the assessment of what was reasonable

in light of counsel’s perspective at the time, and a debatable decision concerning trial

strategy cannot form the basis of a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v.

Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 524-525 (1992); State v. Fields, 2017-Ohio-400, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.).

Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that his or her conduct falls within the wide

range of reasonable assistance. Strickland at 689.

{¶ 10} The second prong requires a showing that the errors were serious enough to

create a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, the outcome of the case would have

been different. Strickland at 694; Lloyd at ¶ 18. “A reasonable probability is a probability

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland at 694.

{¶ 11} Rogan’s conviction was based on his guilty plea. “When a criminal defendant

has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is

charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of

constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” State v. Spates, 64

Ohio St.3d 269, 272 (1992); State v. Coffman, 2021-Ohio-1601, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). -5- Consequently, a guilty plea waives all appealable errors, including claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the errors precluded the defendant from

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering his or her guilty plea. Coffman at ¶ 27;

State v. Riddle, 2017-Ohio-1199, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). “Only if there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but would have

instead insisted on going to trial will the judgment be reversed.” (Citations omitted.) State v.

Huddleson, 2005-Ohio-4029, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 12} The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Rogan understood that he had

agreed to a sentence of 36 months in prison. When the trial court asked Rogan if he had

agreed to the joint sentencing recommendation of 36 months in prison, Rogan initially

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
State v. Huddleson, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2005)
2005 Ohio 4029 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Fields
2017 Ohio 400 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State v. Riddle
2017 Ohio 1199 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State v. Merrick
2020 Ohio 3744 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Coffman
2021 Ohio 1601 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Spates
595 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State v. Cook
605 N.E.2d 70 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State v. Dennis
2022 Ohio 2888 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Lloyd
2022 Ohio 4259 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2022)
State v. Stanford
2023 Ohio 1515 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 Ohio 2468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rogan-ohioctapp-2025.