OH3: Def’s failure to show actual innocence defeats his claim he never saw SW to challenge it

Defendant claimed he never knew about any search warrants in his case, but he was served with one when he was arrested and his place searched. Even so, there is no indication that he would have prevailed on any search issue if one had been presented. State v. Martre, 2019-Ohio-2072, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2130 (3d Dist. May 28, 2019).* This sounds almost like a Catch-22; I didn’t see a search warrant, I don’t know its basis, I can’t allege it was unreasonable if I don’t know what it said. But he’s not asserting innocence, so what difference does it make?:

[*P24] It is important to note that Martre never promoted his actual innocence or revealed a complete defense to his case (other than his challenge to the search warrant). And, in that regard, he never indicated the basis upon which he would file the motion to suppress the search warrant, and how that would operate as a barrier to a finding of guilt or a complete defense to the underlying charges. Interestingly, Martre admitted to inappropriately touching (his 9-year-old live-in ex-girlfriend’s daughter) on two separate occasions in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”). (PSI). Notwithstanding his PSI admission, it is uncontroverted that Martre’s forearm is identifiable (in the cell phone video) through his distinguishing tattoos. This factor weighs in favor of the State.

[*P25] Upon our review of the reasonable-and-legitimate-basis factors as to whether the trial court erred by denying Martre’s motion to withdraw his plea, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying such a request. Accordingly, Martre’s first assignment of error is overruled.