OH: IAC claim must consider that defense counsel determined that it was not in defendant’s best interest to pursue suppression motion

Under the Strickland deferential standard of client performance, the court should consider that defense counsel has a reason for not pursuing a suppression, such as the fact that the officers may testify to things not in the reports which harm defendant’s position. State v. Greathouse, 2008 Ohio 3023, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2552 (8th Dist. June 12, 2008):

“A failure to file a motion to suppress may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where there is a solid possibility that the court would have suppressed the evidence. [Citation omitted.] However, even when some evidence in the record supports a motion to suppress, we presume that defense counsel was effective if defense counsel could reasonably have decided that the filing of a motion to suppress would have been a futile act. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Jackson, Cuyahoga App. No. 86542, 2006 Ohio 1938, P18.

. . .

. . . Therefore, we are mindful that counsel may have been aware of additional facts that were not contained in the report but would have been elicited through the officers’ testimony had there been a formal hearing. This could have weighed into counsel’s decision not to pursue a suppression motion and instead to recommend that defendant enter a no contest plea.

Trial court’s determination on conflicting evidence that defendant’s grandmother consented to a search of her home was binding in the appeals court. People v. Williams, 383 Ill. App. 3d 596, 322 Ill. Dec. 613, 891 N.E.2d 904 (2008).*

Defendant wanted to cooperate with officers in a DUI stop and that made the sobriety test consensual. State v. Osburn, 2008 Ohio 3051, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2562 (9th Dist. June 23, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.