OH6: Not having a full suppression hearing and limiting issues was sound strategy

Defense counsel’s strategy was to attack probable cause, and a full suppression hearing was to be avoided, because that would surely lose. That was sound strategy at the time. State v. Nettles, 2018-Ohio-4908, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 5237 (6th Dist. Dec. 7, 2018):

[*P34] Reviewing the arguments of the parties, we note that appellant never objected to the scope and nature of the September 27, 2017 suppression hearing, and never objected to the state’s subsequent submission of Agent Noel’s affidavit. Appellant’s counsel’s strategy was to limit the court’s review to the warrant itself (which contained no mention of the attorney general’s letter agreeing with the application for the interception warrant) and, strictly construing the requirements of R.C. 2933.53(B)(9), counsel hoped would lead to the suppression of the evidence obtained through execution of the warrant. This was sound trial strategy which could have been undermined had the issuing judge been questioned at a full evidentiary hearing.