State v. Montgomery (148 Ohio St. 3d 347, 2016)

French, J.

{¶ 1} On Thanksgiving Day 2010, appellant, Caron Montgomery, murdered his former girlfriend, Tia Hendricks; their two-year-old son, Tyron Hendricks; and Tia’s nine-year-old daughter, Tahlia Hendricks. Montgomery entered a guilty plea to charges of murder, domestic violence, and aggravated murder with capital specifications. In 2012, a three-judge panel unanimously sentenced him to death for the aggravated murders of Tyron and Tahlia and to 15 years to life in prison for Tia’s murder.

{¶2} We now review Montgomery’s direct appeal as of right and, for the following reasons, affirm his convictions and sentence of death.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶ 3} Following Montgomery’s arrest on November 27, 2010, appellee, the state of Ohio, charged him with two counts of aggravated murder with respect to each child: one for prior calculation and design under R.C. 2903.01(A) (Counts 2 and 4) and one for murder of a person under the age of 13 under R.C. 2903.01(C) (Counts 3 and 5). All four aggravated-murder counts included capital .specifications for course of conduct (R.C. 2929.04(A)(5)) and for murder of a child younger than 13 years old (R.C. 2929.04(A)(9)). Counts 2 and 3, pertaining to Tahlia’s murder, included a third capital specification for murder to escape detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense (R.C. 2929.04(A)(3)). The state also charged Montgomery with one count of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A) and one count of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A) with respect to Tia Hendricks.

{¶ 4} Montgomery waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to the indictment on May 7, 2012. The three-judge panel then held a plea hearing as required by R.C. 2945.06. The state presented the following evidence through its sole witness, Detective Dana Croom, a Columbus homicide detective and the lead detective in the investigation.

A. The State’s Evidence

{¶ 5} On Thanksgiving morning, Columbus police received a 9-1-1 call from a female caller. Croom testified at the plea hearing that the dispatcher “could hear [the female caller] yelling, ‘Caron, Caron.’ ” Police traced the call to Tia Hendricks’s phone, and the dispatcher triangulated the call to 470 Rosslyn Avenue in Sharon Township. Croom explained that the Rosslyn Avenue address was “less than a hundred yards” from the apartment building where Tia resided, 465 Broadmeadows. However, officers were unable to locate the exact apartment from which the 9-1-1 call came.

{¶ 6} According to Croom, Tia’s family contacted police on the day after Thanksgiving after becoming concerned that she and her children had not shown up for Thanksgiving dinner. Tia’s coworkers were also concerned that she had not reported to work on Friday.

{¶ 7} Columbus police went to Tia’s apartment. Although Croom was not one of the responding officers, he testified that police found no signs of forced entry. In fact, the door to Tia’s apartment was locked from the inside with a chain lock, which officers cut with a bolt cutter. The chain part of the lock and the inside doorknob were smeared with what appeared to be blood. Officers discovered the bodies of Tia, Tahlia, and Tyron on the living-room floor. All three were pronounced dead at the scene. According to Croom, a police lieutenant who checked the condition of the bodies described them as “cold,” meaning that “they had been dead for a while.”

{¶ 8} Tia was lying on her back, arms outstretched, with her head and upper torso covered by an article of clothing. Her blue jeans were undone and pulled slightly down, exposing her underwear, and there were several credit and identification cards and an unopened condom package askew on the floor near her head. Tahlia and Tyron were lying face up near the couch, their heads each covered with a blood-stained pillow.

{¶ 9} Officers discovered Montgomery alive and lying on the bed in the master bedroom. He appeared to be injured. Officers could not tell the extent of his injuries, but could see “a little bit of blood.” Croom testified that “when the officers * * * eventually turned him over, he had a knife * * * barely in his neck. When they rolled him over to try to put him on the stretcher, the knife fell off onto the bed.” Montgomery was treated for superficial injuries to his neck, arms, hands, and the top of his head. Croom did not personally observe Montgomery’s injuries, but he testified that the lieutenant who did opined that the injuries to his neck were “fresh.”

{¶ 10} Croom testified that the police “had people who said that [Montgomery] had lived in [Tia’s] apartment.” And Tia’s mother, Deborah Hendricks, told Croom that Tia and Montgomery had “argued a lot” during their off-and-on relationship. The state also introduced a Franklin County Municipal Court complaint charging Montgomery with domestic violence and assault against Tia and the related judgment entry indicating that in 2009, he had pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the domestic-violence charge.

{¶ 11} Croom also testified about the autopsies conducted by Franklin County Deputy Coroner Dr. Tae L. An on November 27 and 28, 2010. Tia’s autopsy revealed 23 stab wounds to her neck, left flank, back, left shoulder, and right forearm. As described in the autopsy report, Dr. An concluded that Tia’s death was caused by two stab wounds in particular, one that lacerated the left common carotid artery and one that lacerated the right internal jugular vein. In addition, Dr. An located more than 20 cutting wounds to the upper portion of Tia’s body and found that these wounds contributed to her death. At the plea hearing, Croom opined that the wounds to Tia’s hands and arms are “[c]ommonly referred to as defensive wounds.”

{¶ 12} Tahlia’s autopsy revealed five stab wounds around her neck and nine cutting wounds to her chin, right shoulder, and right arm that Croom identified as defensive wounds. The autopsy report indicated that stab wounds to the front of her neck severed the left and right common carotid arteries and the left internal jugular vein and caused her death.

{¶ 13} Tyron’s autopsy revealed that “[o]ne large, widely gaping, incised wound” to the front of his neck lacerated the right internal jugular vein, trachea, and esophagus, causing his death. Groom testified that Dr. An found no defensive wounds and that the wound to Tyron’s neck was actually created by two separate injuries.

{¶ 14} Officers from the crime-scene unit photographed and documented the scene in the apartment and collected evidence. From the master bedroom, officers collected the knife that fell out of Montgomery’s neck, a bleach bottle that appeared to have blood on it, and a pair of men’s pants with apparent blood stains. The knife was over 12 inches long, the blade accounting for just over half the total length, and it was bloody and bent. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed that the blood present on the knife, the bleach bottle, and the pants collected from the bedroom matched Montgomery. Croom opined that the presence of Montgomery’s blood on the knife blade indicated that he had injured his hands when they slipped down the blade while he was stabbing and cutting the victims.

{¶ 15} Croom testified that crime-scene-unit officers also observed near the entrance to the apartment a pair of men’s shoes that appeared to have blood on them. They also noted a bloody shoeprint nearby. Officers collected a blood swab from the top of a space heater found near the entrance to Tahlia’s bedroom and a blood swab from the hallway wall just outside her bedroom. Results of DNA testing done on both blood swabs indicated that they were a match to Tia’s DNA profile.

{¶ 16} Officers also collected evidence from Tia’s car, which was found in a parking lot in front of a different building in the apartment complex. Family members told police that Tia usually parked her car near her own building. During a canvass of the area, officers spoke to a female witness, identified only as “Ms. Battle,” who told them that on Thanksgiving evening, she saw a black male exit the vehicle and proceed “southbound and then westbound behind her apartment, which was 425 Broadmeadows.” Battle was unable to identify Montgomery as the person she saw get out of the car. Blood swabs collected from the steering wheel and gear shift knob of Tia’s car matched Montgomery’s DNA profile.

B. Verdict and Sentencing

{¶ 17} On May 8, 2012, the panel returned guilty verdicts as to all counts and specifications in the indictment. The panel proceeded immediately to hold a mitigation hearing, at which the state reintroduced its evidence from the plea hearing. Montgomery presented seven witnesses and made an unsworn statement.

{¶ 18} Following the mitigation hearing, the panel merged the two aggravated-murder convictions regarding Tahlia (Counts 2 and 3), merged the two aggravated-murder convictions regarding Tyron (Counts 4 and 5), and merged the domestic-violence conviction (Count 6) with the murder conviction regarding Tia (Count 1).

{¶ 19} As to both aggravated-murder convictions, the panel determined that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced Montgomery to death. The panel further ordered Montgomery to serve a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for Tia’s murder.

{¶ 20} Montgomery now appeals his convictions and sentences, raising seven propositions of law. For clarity, we address Montgomery’s propositions out of order.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Validity of Jury Waiver and Guilty Plea

{¶ 21} In proposition of law No. 2, Montgomery argues that both his jury waiver and guilty plea were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. He contends that the colloquies surrounding those decisions were inadequate and that the trial court should have further inquired into his mental health and use of prescription medications before accepting his waiver and guilty plea.

1. Jury Waiver

{¶ 22} A jury waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131, 2014-Ohio-2966, 16 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 45. “Waiver may not be presumed from a silent record.” Id. A written jury waiver is “presumptively voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 37. Only a “plain showing that the defendant’s waiver was not freely and intelligently made” will rebut that presumption. Id., citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942).

a. Factual Background

{¶ 23} At a hearing on May 7, 2012, defense counsel presented the trial court with Montgomery’s signed jury waiver. In response to the court’s questions, counsel affirmed that they had reviewed the waiver with him, informed him of his constitutional right to a jury trial, and explained that by waiving the right, he was electing to have his case heard by a panel of three judges, who would ultimately determine his guilt and, if necessary, the appropriate punishment. Defense counsel further affirmed that they had explained that death was a potential punishment if the panel of judges found him guilty of any of the “charges with the specifications.” Finally, defense counsel affirmed that they believed Montgomery was mentally competent and that he understood and knew what he was doing.

{¶ 24} The court then conducted a colloquy with Montgomery to ensure that his waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In response to the court’s questions, Montgomery stated that to his knowledge, he had never been found mentally ill or incompetent and that he was currently under the influence of two prescription medications, Thorazine and Risperdal, which had been prescribed for depression. Montgomery denied having been diagnosed with any other “mental issues.”

{¶ 25} Montgomery acknowledged that he understood he had a constitutional right to have a jury hear his case and determine guilt and, if necessary, punishment. He affirmed that his counsel had explained that by waiving a jury, he was electing not to have 12 people determine his guilt but was electing instead to have a panel of 3 judges decide his guilt and, if necessary, punishment. And he affirmed that no one had promised him anything or threatened him in any way to cause him to want to waive his right to a jury trial. The court asked, “Do you in fact today waive your right to trial by jury and elect to have this matter heard by a panel of three judges?” Montgomery answered, “Yes, sir.”

{¶ 26} Montgomery’s signed jury waiver was journalized on the trial court’s docket and is in the record on appeal. The written waiver contains the following acknowledgment: “I fully understand that under the laws of this State, I have a Constitutional right to a trial by jury. I wish to give up my right to a trial by jury in this case.”

{¶ 27} Based on the waiver colloquy and the signed waiver form, the trial court determined that Montgomery had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a trial by jury.

b. Analysis

{¶ 28} We have long held that “[t]he Criminal Rules and the Revised Code are satisfied by a written waiver, signed by the defendant, filed with the court, and made in open court, after arraignment and opportunity to consult with counsel.” State v. Jells, 53 Ohio St.3d 22, 26, 559 N.E.2d 464 (1990). A jury waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary “ ‘if the defendant fully understands the nature of the right and how it would likely apply in general in the circumstances — even though the defendant may not know the specific detailed consequences of invoking it.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 69, quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002).

{¶ 29} Nothing in the record supports Montgomery’s contention that his jury waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Before the trial court accepted his waiver, Montgomery affirmed that he was making the decision freely and that he understood that he was relinquishing a constitutional right to a jury trial in favor of having a three-judge panel determine guilt and, if necessary, punishment. He acknowledged his awareness that if he were found guilty, the punishment could be death. He also confirmed that his attorneys had discussed with him the jury-trial right and the option to waive it, and his counsel declared their belief that he was competent to waive the right and that he understood the consequences of a waiver.

{¶ 30} Without more, the fact that Montgomery was on prescription medications for depression does not defeat the presumption that his written waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Montgomery does not allege that he, in fact, failed to understand the waiver proceedings or the effect of his decision to waive — or that his decision was somehow involuntary- — because of the prescription medications. Instead, he asserts that “[a]n expert opinion on the effects of the medications * * * was necessary, especially given that he was giving up critical rights and facing the death penalty.” But Montgomery offers no authority for his assertion, and the burden of demonstrating error in the waiver proceedings is on him. See Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, at ¶ 41, citing Adams, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268. Montgomery also argues that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent because the trial court did not specifically inform him that the death penalty could not be imposed should one juror vote against it. We have previously rejected the claim that a trial court must, during a jury-waiver colloquy, inform the defendant of the need for juror unanimity to impose death. State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15, 19-21, 716 N.E.2d 1126 (1999).

{¶ 31} Montgomery’s complaint that his waiver is invalid because the trial court failed to inform him that “it would only take one of the twelve jurors voting against conviction for him to be found not guilty” is likewise based on a faulty premise. Under Crim.R. 31(A), unanimity is required when the jury returns either a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. The trial court would have erred had it informed Montgomery that the lack of a unanimous verdict would have resulted in an acquittal.

{¶ 32} Finally, he argues that the court failed to inform him that a jury waiver would result in a waiver of certain claims on appeal. However, “ ‘[sjince * * * no inquiry is required, the trial court’s failure to make specific inquiries of the defendant cannot be error.’ ” Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, at ¶ 70, quoting State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230, 238, 714 N.E.2d 867 (1999). Moreover, we are “aware of no Supreme Court precedent * * * that conditions the validity of a jury waiver upon a defendant’s understanding of the appellate process.” Filiaggi v. Bagley, 445 F.3d 851, 856 (6th Cir.2006).

{¶ 33} Montgomery has not made a plain showing that his written jury waiver was unknowing, unintelligent or involuntary.

2. Guilty Plea

{¶ 34} Montgomery also contends that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into his mental state and whether his prescription medications had any effect on his ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. He maintains that once the trial court was aware that he was taking prescription medications for depression at the time of his plea, it should have ordered a competency evaluation. We disagree.

a. Factual Background

{¶ 35} Shortly after he waived his right to a jury, a three-judge panel assembled and Montgomery pleaded guilty to all counts and specifications in the indictment. At the start of the plea hearing, the assistant prosecutor presented the panel with a written plea form signed by Montgomery and all counsel. The assistant prosecutor also informed the panel that there was no jointly recommended sentence.

{¶ 36} In response to the panel’s questions, defense counsel affirmed that they had discussed the matter with Montgomery, that they approved of the written plea form, and that they approved of his entering a guilty plea in the case. The panel then asked defense counsel, “At this time do you believe Mr. Montgomery to be mentally competent and do you believe he understands and knows what he’s doing here today?” Defense counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”

{¶ 37} The following exchange then took place:

JUDGE REECE: Mr. Montgomery, before the Court can accept your plea, sir, we must first advise you of your rights and ask you some questions so we can determine whether your plea is being made voluntarily, knowingly, and with understanding.

JUDGE REECE: [H]ave you ever been found to be mentally ill or mentally incompetent?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

JUDGE REECE: Are you currently under the influence of drugs?

THE DEFENDANT: Just Risperdal and Thorazine.

JUDGE REECE: Alcohol?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

JUDGE REECE: And the prescription drugs, I asked you about that a little earlier this morning, those are prescribed by a medical doctor?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

JUDGE -REECE: And you are taking those pursuant to that prescription?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

JUDGE REECE: My understanding is you are taking that for depression, correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

JUDGE REECE: Sir, as you appear here today, do you understand that you have a right to have a trial in this matter and to have the trial— these three judges to determine whether or not you are guilty of the offense that you are charged with here today?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I understand.

JUDGE REECE: And my understanding is that you want to give up that right to a trial and to enter a plea of guilty to the charges in this ease; is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

{¶ 38} The panel also advised Montgomery of the charges in the indictment, of the maximum penalties those charges carried, and of each of the constitutional rights that would be waived upon entry of his guilty plea. After each discrete explanation, Montgomery said that he understood.

{¶ 39} Montgomery also affirmed that his plea was voluntary and that no one had promised him anything in return for his plea or threatened him in order to induce his plea. Finally, he acknowledged that his attorneys had reviewed the written plea form with him before he signed it, had been “diligent and effective” in representing him and in trying to act in his best interests, had informed him of his options, and had allowed him to make the decision as to whether to plead guilty or go to trial.

b. Sufficiency of Inquiry into Mental State

{¶ 40} A guilty plea that is not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary violates the Ohio and United States Constitutions. State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996), citing Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

{¶41} To effectuate this constitutional mandate, we have held that before accepting a guilty plea, a “trial court must inform the defendant that he is waiving his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to jury trial, his right to confront his accusers, and his right of compulsory process of witnesses.” State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981), paragraph one of the syllabus, following Boykin; see also Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). In addition to these constitutional rights, the trial court must determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, the maximum penalty involved, and the effect of the plea. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b).

{¶ 42} A plea may be involuntary if “the accused does not understand the nature of the constitutional protections he is waiving * * * 0r * * * he has such an incomplete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.” Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), fn. 13. Thus, “a plea does not qualify as intelligent unless a criminal defendant first receives ‘real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process.’ ” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998), quoting Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 334, 61 S.Ct. 572, 85 L.Ed. 859 (1941).

{¶ 43} We have acknowledged that when a trial court engages in a full Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy with the defendant and addresses all of the constitutional rights waived by the plea, a “reviewing court should be permitted to consider additional record evidence to reconcile any alleged ambiguity [in the colloquy].” State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 24. Accordingly, to determine whether the panel’s plea colloquy with Montgomery was sufficient to ensure that he entered a voluntary and knowing plea, we examine the totality of the circumstances. See Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, at ¶ 56, citing Henderson at 644 and State v. Rainey, 3 Ohio App.3d 441, 442, 446 N.E.2d 188 (10th Dist.1982).

{¶ 44} In this case, the panel fully complied with Ballard and Crim.R. 11(C)(2), conducting a thorough colloquy with Montgomery and his counsel to ensure that he understood the proceedings and was capable of entering his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. But Montgomery contends that the panel’s inquiry into the effect, if any, that his prescription medications had on his mental state was inadequate under State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-Ohio-1580, 805 N.E.2d 1064. Examining the totality of the circumstances, we do not find, as Montgomery contends, that the three-judge panel inadequately inquired into what effect, if any, his prescription medications had on his mental state.

{¶ 45} In Mink, we stated that “[additional inquiry is necessary into a defendant’s mental state once a defendant seeking to enter a guilty plea has stated that he is under the influence of drugs or medication.” Id. at ¶ 66. And applying that standard, we upheld Mink’s guilty plea and rejected his argument that the trial court inadequately questioned him about any potential effects that his antidepressant medication had on his competency to plead guilty. Id. at ¶ 68.

{¶ 46} We noted that before he entered his plea, Mink underwent two competency evaluations, each resulting in a finding that Mink was competent. Id. at ¶ 32, 64. One of the two competency reports reflected the psychologist’s awareness that Mink was taking an antidepressant, yet that fact did not alter the psychologist’s conclusion that he was competent to plead guilty. Id. at ¶ 64. In addition, during the plea colloquy, Mink confirmed that his prescription medications did not interfere with his ability to understand the proceedings. Id.

(¶ 47} We hold that the panel in this case complied with Mink. The panel had no reason to believe that Montgomery had any issues with competence or could not intelligently and voluntarily enter a guilty plea. Throughout the nearly 18 months preceding Montgomery’s guilty plea, the presiding judge repeatedly observed Montgomery and spoke with him and his two defense attorneys. Prior to the plea hearing, Montgomery appeared multiple times before the presiding judge, including at the jury-waiver hearing, and neither he nor his counsel ever made any representation to the court that he had any mental-health issues or any issues with competency.

{¶ 48} Indeed, Montgomery even now presents us with no reason to believe that he was incapable of intelligently and voluntarily pleading guilty. Rather, he merely alleges that the panel did not ask enough questions about his prescription medications at the time of the plea.

{¶ 49} But the record demonstrates that the presiding judge learned that Montgomery was taking two medications prescribed for mental illness at the jury-waiver hearing and that in that colloquy, the judge asked whether he had been prescribed the medications and whether he was taking them pursuant to the prescription. As described above, after learning that Montgomery was taking the medications, the presiding judge directly asked him whether he understood the constitutional rights he was forgoing by waiving his right to a jury, whether he was doing so voluntarily, and whether his counsel had reviewed the jury waiver with him prior to the hearing.

{¶ 50} Likewise, at the plea hearing, the presiding judge revisited the subject of Montgomery’s prescription medications for the benefit of the other judges composing the three-judge panel. And only after Montgomery reaffirmed that he was taking medications pursuant to a doctor’s prescription did the panel conduct the full plea colloquy in compliance with Crim.R. 11. The panel asked Montgomery whether he understood the charges against him, the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, the consequences of his guilty plea, and the maximum sentence he could potentially receive if found guilty of the capital specifications. The panel then verified that he understood the written plea agreement and had executed it with the advice of his counsel. Montgomery answered each of the panel’s questions in the affirmative and in a coherent fashion.

{¶ 51} The panel also directly addressed Montgomery’s lawyers and asked whether they had any reason to believe that he was not competent or capable of voluntarily and intelligently pleading guilty. Defense counsel, both of whom were experienced and certified capital defense attorneys, were aware that Montgomery was medicated for depression, yet they had no concerns about his competence. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (noting that the representations of the defendant’s lawyers at a Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing constitute a formidable barrier in a subsequent challenge to the defendant’s competency). The record demonstrates that defense counsel never raised an issue to the court about Montgomery’s ability to understand the proceedings and enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.

{¶ 52} In short, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Montgomery was not in full possession of his faculties at the plea hearing or at any other point during the pendency of his case. Under these circumstances and considering the totality of the evidence, we find that the panel’s inquiry into Montgomery’s mental state and use of prescription medications and in its acceptance of Montgomery’s guilty plea was adequate and that Montgomery voluntarily and knowingly pleaded guilty to capital murder.

c. Failure to Sua Sponte Order Competency Hearing

{¶ 53} Montgomery argues that the panel’s failure to sua sponte order a competency hearing upon learning that he was taking prescription medications at the time of the plea renders his plea invalid. In this proposition, Montgomery does not contend that he was legally incompetent as a result of the prescription medications that he was taking or that his medications caused him to unknowingly and unintelligently enter his guilty plea. Instead, he contends that the panel’s reliance on defense counsel’s assessment of Montgomery’s competence and on its own observations of Montgomery throughout the proceedings was insufficient. In support, he invokes Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-Ohio-1580, 805 N.E.2d 1064, and Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, and contends that our decisions in those cases establish that a competency evaluation must be ordered by the court when a capital defendant is taking prescription medication and enters a guilty plea.

{¶ 54} As Montgomery observes, competency evaluations were conducted in Mink and Ketterer before each defendant entered his guilty plea to capital charges. See Mink at ¶ 31-32; Ketterer at ¶ 67. But we have never held that a court must order a competency hearing before accepting a guilty plea from a capital defendant who is taking a prescription medication for mental illness, and we decline to do so now.

{¶ 55} “R.C. 2945.37(G) creates a rebuttable presumption that a defendant is competent to stand trial.” State v. Barton, 108 Ohio St.3d 402, 2006-Ohio-1324, 844 N.E.2d 307, ¶ 56. A trial court must hold a competency hearing if a request is made before trial, R.C. 2945.37(B), or if the record contains sufficient indicia of incompetence that an inquiry is necessary to ensure that the defendant is accorded his rights to due process and a fair trial. State v. Were, 94 Ohio St.3d 173, 175, 761 N.E.2d 591 (2002), citing State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995).

{¶ 56} The constitutional standard for assessing a defendant’s competency to enter a guilty plea is the same as that for determining his competency to stand trial. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 398-399, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). The defendant must have a “ ‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’ and [have] ‘a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’ ” Id. at 396, quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). Further, “[i]n addition to determining that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty * * * is competent, a trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary.” Id. at 400. And it is a matter of statutory and decisional law that “[t]he fact that a defendant is taking antidepressant medication or prescribed psychotropic drugs does not negate his competence to stand trial.” Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, at ¶ 71; see also Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-0hio-1580, 805 N.E.2d 1064, at ¶ 38, citing R.C. 2945.37(F).

{¶ 57} Here, no request was made to evaluate Montgomery’s competency before or during the plea hearing. Likewise, the record does not indicate that Montgomery failed to understand the proceedings or was incapable of consulting with his counsel “ ‘with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.’ ” Godi-nez at 396, quoting Dusky at 402. During the plea colloquy, Montgomery appropriately answered the court’s questions and, when asked by the court, affirmed that defense counsel had discussed with him the options of a trial and a plea and provided him with the necessary information to allow him to make an informed decision to plead guilty.

{¶ 58} Additionally, defense counsel, who were appointed to represent Montgomery in January 2011, retained forensic psychologist Dr. Bob Stinson more than a year before Montgomery’s plea hearing. Billing records demonstrate that Dr. Stinson spent many hours reviewing Montgomery’s records,- conducted five separate in-person evaluations of him, met with the defense team several times, and prepared a report. Since defense counsel retained an expert to evaluate Montgomery’s mental health, presumably counsel had access, at the time of the plea, to information regarding his mental health and/or alleged incompetence. However, counsel offered no such evidence. Additionally, the fact that defense counsel retained Dr. Stinson more than a year before the plea hearing and, in that span of time, met with Montgomery on several occasions indicates that counsel’s response to the panel’s query about Montgomery’s competence was not uninformed, as Montgomery now implies.

{¶ 59} Finally, Montgomery’s behavior throughout the plea colloquy and hearing was not outrageous, irrational or confused. See State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 439, 2003-Ohio-4164, 793 N.E.2d 446, ¶ 63 (noting that during the time that counsel represented Williams, “counsel discovered no basis to question [his] competence. Moreover, Williams displayed no outrageous, irrational behavior during trial, and counsel never complained about his lack of cooperation”). We have previously found it “ ‘noteworthy [when] nobody on the spot thought [a defendant’s] behavior raised any question as to his competence.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Id., quoting State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 84, 717 N.E.2d 298 (1999).

{¶ 60} The three-judge panel did not err by failing to sua sponte order Montgomery to undergo a competency evaluation.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence and Manifest Weight

{¶ 61} In proposition of law No. 1, Montgomery argues that the evidence presented during the plea hearing was insufficient to convict him of the escaping-detection specification attached to Counts 2 and 3 (aggravated murder of Tahlia). Montgomery also contends that his conviction for that specification is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

1. Applicability of Sufficiency Standard

{¶ 62} As a threshold matter, the state advances several unconvincing arguments supporting its contention that it was not required to provide sufficient evidence of the capital specifications in light of Montgomery’s guilty plea.

{¶ 63} Quoting Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.1986), the state asserts that the sufficiency standard “is ‘inapplicable to convictions based on a guilty plea,’ ” because the plea operates as a complete admission of factual guilt.

{¶ 64} A guilty plea is a complete admission of factual guilt, Crim.R. 11(B)(1), and ordinarily bars a defendant from asserting on appeal any constitutional error that preceded the guilty plea, see Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, at ¶ 78. However, we have held that “when the offense charged is a capital offense, R.C. 2945.06 and Crim.R. 11(C)(3) require the state to prove guilt of an aggravated-murder charge with death specifications even when an accused pleads guilty.” Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, at ¶ 93. Therefore, sufficiency challenges on appeal are “ ‘expressly permitted’ ” when a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder with capital specifications. Id., quoting Carpenter v. Mohr, 163 F.3d 938, 946 (6th Cir.1998), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000).

{¶ 65} Second, the state argues that neither R.C. 2945.06 nor Crim.R. 11(C)(3) requires that “independent proof be provided in support of the specifications.” Those provisions, according to the state, “are directed toward the question * * * whether the defendant is guilty of aggravated murder or some lesser offense.” (Emphasis sic.) Thus, the state concludes that R.C. 2945.06 and Crim.R. 11(C)(3) do not apply to the capital specifications contained in R.C. 2929.04(A).

{¶ 66} The state also contends that if this court interprets Crim.R. 11(C)(3) “to require an examination of witnesses as to a capital specification, it would be unconstitutional” under Article IV, Section 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution. Finally, the state contends that Ketterer should be overruled to the extent that it extended to capital specifications the syllabus law of State v. Green, 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 104, 689 N.E.2d 556 (1998), which held that “[wjhen a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder in a capital case, a three-judge panel is required to examine witnesses and to hear any other evidence properly presented by the prosecution in order to make a Crim.R. 11 determination as to the guilt of the defendant.” We reject all of the state’s arguments in this vein and decline to overrule Ketterer.

{¶ 67} The state relies heavily on our decision in State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, to support its argument. Ford involved the question whether a firearm specification could be an allied offense of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 and was therefore capable of being merged with the predicate offense. Id. at ¶ 1. Answering that question in the negative, we held that “[t]he criminal offense of discharging a firearm at or into a habitation as defined in R.C. 2923.161 and a firearm specification as defined in R.C. 2941.145 are not allied offenses of similar import as defined in R.C. 2941.25, because a firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not a criminal offense.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 68} The state focuses on language in Ford indicating that the firearm specification is “not a separate criminal offense” because it is “merely a sentencing provision that requires an enhanced penalty upon certain findings.” Id. at ¶ 16-17. The state concludes that because the aggravating circumstances enumerated in R.C. 2929.04(A) are contingent upon proof of the predicate offense of aggravated murder, “it becomes plain that, when R.C. 2945.06 refers to having an examination of witnesses to ‘determine whether the accused is guilty of aggravated murder or some other offense,’ the provision is directed solely toward proof of the ‘offense,’ i.e., aggravated murder, not toward the accompanying speeification(s).” We disagree.

{¶ 69} First, Ford was not a capital case; thus, in that opinion, we did not address whether a capital specification must be supported by legally sufficient evidence. More importantly, R.C. 2929.04(A) states, “Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is precluded unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The firearm-specification statute at issue in Ford contains no similar language requiring that it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Compare R.C. 2941.145.

{¶ 70} “We have consistently required strict compliance with Ohio statutes when reviewing the procedures in capital cases.” Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d at 240, 714 N.E.2d 867. R.C. 2929.04(A) unambiguously states that the capital specifications must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And R.C. 2945.06 provides, “The court shall follow the procedures contained in sections 2929.03 and 2929.04 of the Revised Code in all cases in which the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death.” Accordingly, when read together, R.C. 2945.06 and 2929.04(A) mandate that the offense of aggravated murder, including any attached capital specifications, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

{¶ 71} We also reject the state’s suggestion that Crim.R. 11(C)(3) would be unconstitutional if “interpreted to require an examination of witnesses.” The state’s argument hinges on its assertion that Crim.R. 11(C)(3) contains no “requirement that independent proof be provided in support of the specifications” and that requiring sufficient proof to support the capital specifications would “be an improper substantive expansion of [Crim.R. 11(C)(3)] beyond what the statutory law provides.” In its view, requiring the state to provide evidence to support the finding of guilt on a capital specification when a defendant enters a guilty plea would equate to giving Crim.R. 11 “substantive effect” in violation of Article IV, Section 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution. We disagree.

{¶ 72} The interplay between procedural rules and the provisions of the Revised Code that apply to capital cases makes clear that when a defendant pleads guilty to an indictment containing capital specifications, Crim.R. 11(C)(3), R.C. 2945.06, and R.C. 2929.04 work together to require sufficient proof of the offense of aggravated murder as well as the capital specifications attached to that offense. R.C. 2929.04(A) specifically requires that capital specifications be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and R.C. 2945.06 directs trial courts to “follow the procedures contained in sections 2929.03 and 2929.04 of the Revised Code in all cases in which the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death.” Accordingly, R.C. 2945.06 and 2929.04(A) together prescribe the procedures required when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a capital indictment. And this court has specifically held that there is “no conflict in the procedural requirements of Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2945.06.” Green, 81 Ohio St.3d at 104, 689 N.E.2d 556. Accordingly, we hold that construing Crim.R. 11(C)(3) and R.C. 2945.06 and 2929.04(A) together is appropriate and does not result in any conflict.

{¶ 73} Thus, in a capital case, the aggravating circumstances codified in R.C. 2929.04(A) require the production of evidence sufficient to prove their existence beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject the state’s argument that it had no duty to prove the capital specifications because of Montgomery’s guilty plea.

2. Applicable Legal Standards

{¶ 74} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction requires that we consider “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We will not “disturb a verdict on appeal on sufficiency grounds unless ‘reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.’ ” Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, at ¶ 94, quoting State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (1997).

{¶ 75} In contrast, a manifest-weight challenge “concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence * * * to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990). A manifest-weight challenge requires us to consider the entire record, including the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and any reasonable inferences, and determine whether “ ‘the [panel] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983); accord R.C. 2953.02.

3. Analysis

{¶ 76} Montgomery argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his guilt on the escaping-detection specification because the state “presented no evidence that the death of Tia occurred first in time or that Tahlia’s death was a means to escape detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment.” The state counters by arguing, first, that the language of the escaping-detection specification in the indictment alleged only that Montgomery killed Tahlia to escape detection for “murder,” generally; in other words, the specification’s language did not require proof that he killed Tahlia to escape detection for Tia’s murder. The state also argues that “nothing in the specification required that the State prove that Tia’s (or Tyron’s) murder preceded the killing of Tahlia.”

{¶ 77} The evidence adduced at the plea hearing did not directly establish the order in which Montgomery murdered the three victims. However, we have held that “where the accused attempts to kill the only witness to his commission of a crime, there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence that the act was undertaken for the purpose of avoiding detection.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71, 85, 571 N.E.2d 97 (1991). Thus, because Montgomery murdered all three individuals present in the apartment, we find that any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that he murdered Tahlia for the purpose of escaping detection for the other murders.

{¶ 78} In conclusion, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we find that there was sufficient evidence to convict Montgomery of murdering Tahlia for the purpose of escaping detection for either of the other two murders.

{¶ 79} We also reject Montgomery’s claim that his conviction for this specification was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Montgomery presented no evidence during the plea hearing and declined to cross-examine Detective Croom. A review of the entire record reveals no inconsistencies or other conflicts in the evidence that indicate to us a lack of credibility of the sole witness. Accordingly, Montgomery has not shown that “a miscarriage of justice” occurred or that the panel “lost its way” when it found him guilty of the R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) specification attached to Counts 2 and 3.

(¶ 80} We reject proposition of law No. 1.

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

{¶ 81} In proposition of law No. 3, Montgomery argues that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance during the plea and mitigation hearings. He further contends that the “cumulative effect” of counsel’s errors and omissions resulted in the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

{¶ 82} To assess Montgomery’s ineffective-assistance claim, we must engage in a two-part inquiry. Montgomery must show both that his counsel performed deficiently during the trial-court proceedings and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). With regard to the performance prong, he must show that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. To show prejudice, he must prove that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694. The prejudice inquiry thus focuses not only on outcome determination, but also on “whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.” Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993).

1. Failure to Object to Inadmissible Testimony

{¶ 83} Montgomery initially contends that defense counsel provided ineffective representation when they failed to object to portions of Detective Croom’s testimony on hearsay and confrontation grounds.

{¶ 84} Montgomery’s argument must be evaluated in the context of R.C. 2945.06, which requires a three-judge panel to conduct an evidentiary hearing to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant pleads guilty to capital murder. We have interpreted R.C. 2945.06 to require “a three-judge panel * * * to examine witnesses and to hear any other evidence properly presented by the prosecution in order to make a Crim.R. 11 determination as to the guilt of the defendant.” Green, 81 Ohio St.3d at 104-105, 689 N.E.2d 556.

{¶ 85} During the plea hearing, defense counsel objected to every photograph as gruesome and cumulative, but specifically informed the court that they did not object to the three autopsy reports. Defense counsel did not object to Croom’s testimony about the autopsy reports or to his testimony about what witnesses said during the investigation.

{¶ 86} A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must “identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Montgomery specifically challenges, on both confrontation and hearsay grounds, counsel’s failure to object to Croom’s testimony about “conversations with Fred Taylor” who had been with Tia on the night of November 24 and “statements from family members who were concerned that Tia had not arrived as expected on Thanksgiving and that her car was parked in an unfamiliar location” as well as Croom’s testimony about Battle’s statements regarding what she witnessed on Thanksgiving evening. He also argues that defense counsel were ineffective for failing to object on confrontation and hearsay grounds to Croom’s testimony about the autopsies.

a. Testimony about Witness and Family-Member Statements

{¶ 87} Evid.R. 801(C) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the * * * hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Evid.R. 802 generally prohibits the introduction of hearsay unless the evidence falls under a specific exception to the hearsay prohibition. And only testimonial hearsay implicates the Confrontation Clause, which provides a criminal defendant with the right to be confronted with any witness against him. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). “[Tjestimonial statements are those made for ‘a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’ ” State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 40, quoting Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011).

{¶ 88} However, a law-enforcement officer can testify about a declarant’s out-of-court statement for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining his or her next investigative step. State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223, 232, 400 N.E.2d 401 (1980). Testimony offered to explain police conduct is admissible as nonhearsay only if it satisfies three criteria: (1) “the conduct to be explained [is] relevant, equivocal, and contemporaneous with the statements,” (2) the probative value of the statements is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (3) “the statements [do not] connect the accused with the crime charged.” State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356, 2013-Ohio-3712, 995 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 27. If these conditions are met, the testimony does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), fn. 9.

{¶ 89} Croom’s testimony about Tia’s family members’ and coworkers’ concern about her absence was not inadmissible hearsay, and defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to object. Croom offered the statements to explain how police came to investigate the case. Croom’s testimony regarding what Tia’s family told another detective about the location of Tia’s parked car was also offered to describe how officers found Tia’s car. This testimony was relevant, equivocal, and did not identify Montgomery as the perpetrator, and the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of this testimony. Accordingly, any objection by defense counsel to this testimony would not have been sustained, and counsel were not ineffective for failing to object.

{¶ 90} Croom’s testimony about what the witness identified as Ms. Battle told officers (that she saw a man exit Tia’s vehicle on Thanksgiving evening) arguably violated Ricks because it went beyond the nonhearsay purpose of explaining how officers came to locate Tia’s car. Battle’s statements provided officers with an evidentiary link to Montgomery as the perpetrator, and she offered those statements in the course of a police canvass designed to elicit information “to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution,” Davis, 547 U.S. at 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224. However, because Battle’s statements were offered in a proceeding before a three-judge panel, any error in admitting Battle’s statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The evidence of Montgomery’s guilt was overwhelming, and we apply the presumption that the three-judge panel knew the law and considered only competent, relevant evidence in its deliberations. See State v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 44, 48, 584 N.E.2d 1192 (1992) (“Judges, unlike juries, are presumed to know the law. Judges are trained and expected to disregard any extraneous influences in deliberations”). Accordingly, we conclude that defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to object to Croom’s testimony about what Battle said to officers during the investigation.

{¶ 91} Croom’s testimony regarding Taylor’s statements about his relationship to Tia and Tia’s activities the night before her murder was arguably offered to explain the subsequent investigative steps taken in this case. Taylor’s statements provided police with information about Tia’s last known whereabouts and allowed police to investigate Taylor’s role, if any, in the homicides. This testimony established that Taylor was not a suspect, and “a court deciding an actual ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.

{¶ 92} Taylor’s statements did not inculpate Montgomery and were not prejudicial to him. Any objection by defense counsel to this testimony would likely have been overruled. Therefore, counsel’s decision not to object was reasonable trial strategy.

b. Testimony about the Autopsy Reports

{¶ 93} Montgomery also cannot establish ineffective assistance stemming from counsel’s failure to object to the autopsy reports or to Croom’s testimony about them. First, defense counsel’s agreement to the admission of the three autopsy reports in this case was reasonable in light of this court’s decision, four years before Montgomery’s plea hearing, that “autopsy records are admissible as nontestimonial business records.” State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306, 2006-Ohio-4571, 853 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 88; accord Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, at ¶ 59 (“although autopsy reports are sometimes relevant in criminal prosecutions, Craig rightly held that they are not created primarily for a prosecutorial purpose”).

{¶ 94} Second, counsel’s failure to object to Croom’s testimony about the contents of the autopsy reports did not fall below the objective standard of reasonableness applicable to ineffective-assistance claims. Montgomery does not dispute any of the coroner’s findings or conclusions. And, as previously mentioned, the stipulation to admit the autopsy reports themselves occurred prior to Croom’s testimony. Counsel could reasonably have determined that having Croom testify summarily about the autopsy reports would not prejudice Montgomery, because the panel would be exposed to less detail about how each victim died than it would have been had Dr. An testified. See State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195, 2004-Ohio-6391, 819 N.E.2d 215, ¶ 196 (counsel could have reasonably concluded that the defendant had nothing to gain from having the testimony that was given by a police “summary witness” be instead “presented by several witnesses rather than one”).

{¶ 95} Montgomery also fails to carry his burden on the issue of prejudice. He does not allege any specific prejudice that befell him as a result of counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, contending merely that Croom’s testimony about the autopsy reports “was in violation of Crawford * * * and trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object.” Montgomery’s argument is conclusory, and he has not even attempted to show prejudice under Strickland.

2. Failure to Seek a Plea Agreement for a Sentence other than Death

{¶ 96} Montgomery also argues that defense counsel were ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to the indictment without securing an agreement from the state not to pursue the death penalty. In response, the state asserts that the record fails to demonstrate whether any plea negotiations occurred and what defense counsel’s advice to Montgomery was.

{¶ 97} Initially, Montgomery contends that “[t]he United States Supreme Court has determined that the [American Bar Association (“ABA”)] Guidelines [for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases] provide the standards to be used in evaluating counsel’s effectiveness in a capital case.” He notes that the ABA Guidelines caution that “[i]f no written guarantee can be obtained that death will not be imposed following a plea of guilty, counsel should be extremely reluctant to participate in a waiver of the client’s trial rights.” See ABA, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Guideline 10.9.2, Commentary (Rev.Ed. 2003), reprinted in 31 Hofstra L.Rev. 913, 1045 (2003).

{¶ 98} The United States Supreme Court has “explicitly approved” using the ABA Guidelines “on attorney performance in effect at the time of a defendant’s trial as ‘guides to determining what is reasonable’ performance by counsel.” Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 534-535 (6th Cir.2013), quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). The court has also clarified that “ ‘[ABA] standards and the like’ are ‘only guides’ to what reasonableness means, not its definition.” Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 8, 130 S.Ct. 13, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009), quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.

{¶ 99} As to the application of those guidelines here, the record before us does not disclose whether Montgomery was offered a plea deal at any stage of the litigation. Defense counsel informed the court early in the proceedings that “the path that the case has taken already — the Court is aware that the intention is to enter [a] guilty plea and simply address the mitigation phase on this except for the facts.” But the record does not indicate whether defense counsel attempted to negotiate a plea deal with the state or whether plea negotiations ever occurred. Further, Montgomery’s assertion that defense counsel advised him to plead guilty is not supported by the record. As noted previously, Montgomery affirmed in open court that, before he entered his plea, defense counsel discussed with him the options between trying his case to a jury or entering a guilty plea to a panel of judges and that pleading guilty was his own voluntary choice.

{¶ 100} Even if Montgomery could establish that defense counsel explicitly advised him to enter a guilty plea without a plea agreement, pleading gu