State v. Ahmad
2017 Ohio 6991
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At an Insane Clown Posse concert, officers observed Malik Ahmad announce he had cocaine for sale, handle a Gucci bag, measure white powder onto a digital scale, and complete multiple hand-to-hand sales. Officers arrested Ahmad after he resisted and briefly transferred the Gucci bag to a co-defendant, who fled; the bag later recovered contained cash and suspected cocaine, heroin, and marijuana later confirmed by BCI.
- Ahmad was Mirandized and admitted selling cocaine. BCI testing: 86.33g cocaine, 4.80g heroin, 4.373g marijuana; $2,229 seized.
- Indictment: eight counts including trafficking (multiple counts), possession, tampering with evidence, resisting arrest, and misdemeanors; several counts carried a forfeiture specification for the seized cash.
- On the suppression-motion day, the court conducted a change-of-plea colloquy: the State moved to dismiss five counts; Ahmad pled guilty to Count One (trafficking/possession of cocaine), Count Four (possession of heroin), and Count Six (resisting arrest). The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of nine years.
- Ahmad appealed, raising (1) Crim.R. 11(F) violation — plea agreement terms not fully stated on the record (specifically regarding waiver of his suppression motion), (2) ineffective assistance for failure to object to that omission, and (3) ineffective assistance arguing the plea conferred no benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ahmad) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Crim.R. 11(F) was violated because the full negotiated plea terms (including disposition of suppression motion) were not stated on the record | The record shows the State stated which counts it was dismissing on the record; no evidence suppression-waiver was part of the plea, so Crim.R. 11(F) procedures were followed | Ahmad contends the plea was invalid because the record lacks any statement that he waived or withdrew his suppression motion as part of the plea | Court held Crim.R. 11(F) was satisfied — the plea terms were stated on the record; matters outside the record (e.g., alleged suppression-waiver) cannot be resolved on direct appeal |
| 2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the alleged omission re: plea terms (suppression issue) | The State: even if counsel omitted an objection, Ahmad cannot show prejudice because his convictions were based on guilty pleas, not on unsuppressed evidence | Ahmad argues counsel’s failure to object preserved no appellate claim and deprived him of counsel; would not have pled if he knew counsel would not object | Court held no ineffective assistance: guilty pleas waive suppression-error claims and Ahmad cannot show prejudice under Strickland |
| 3. Whether counsel was ineffective for advising Ahmad to accept a plea that conferred no benefit | The State argues Ahmad received tangible benefit (dismissal of Tampering with Evidence — third-degree felony, up to 3 years) and other dismissed counts reduced exposure; trial strategy reasonable | Ahmad argues plea produced no real benefit because sentencing exposure at trial likely would have been similar and some counts would have merged or run concurrent | Court held counsel not ineffective: under totality of circumstances dismissal of Count Five and other counts constituted a benefit; counsel’s advice was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2008) (guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (same statement of plea voluntariness requirements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1955) (court must indulge strong presumption counsel's conduct is reasonable)
- State v. Spivey, 81 Ohio St.3d 405 (Ohio 1998) (plea operates as waiver of suppression-error claims)