{"id":2191,"date":"2008-12-24T06:39:28","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T10:46:05","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-26T10:46:05","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2191","title":{"rendered":"OH: IAC claim must consider that defense counsel determined that it was not in defendant’s best interest to pursue suppression motion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Under the Strickland<\/em> 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<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 3023, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2552 (8th Dist. June 12, 2008):<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

. . . 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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).*<\/p>\n

Defendant wanted to cooperate with officers in a DUI stop and that made the sobriety test consensual. State v. Osburn<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 3051, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2562 (9th Dist. June 23, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2191\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}