State v. Collier, 2011 Ohio 6154

Collier filed a timely App.R. 26(B) application to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Collier, 2011-Ohio-2791, after a prior conviction for pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, importuning, and possessing criminal tools.
The appellate court denied reopening of Collier’s original appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Collier pleaded guilty to the offenses, thereby waiving the right to challenge suppression issues on appeal.
The sentencing included information presented by the prosecutor and a sentence within the statutory range.
Collier argued two ineffective-assistance claims: trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress unrelated evidence, and appellate counsel’s failure to anticipate a change in the law regarding consecutive sentences.
The court applied the Strickland framework via Reed and concluded Collier failed to show a colorable claim of ineffective assistance on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to challenge suppression	Collier (Collier) claims counsel should have challenged suppression.	Collier’s plea waived suppression challenges; evidence at sentencing was proper.	No error; waiver and sentencing rationale valid.
Ineffective assistance for failing to anticipate law change on sentencing	Counsel should have delayed appeal to apply RC 2929.14(E) change.	Counsel not required to anticipate future law changes.	Not ineffective; no demonstrated duty or likelihood of reversal.

State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996-Ohio-21) (two-prong Strickland standard applies to App.R. 26(B) claims)
State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998-Ohio-704) (colorable claim requires genuine issue of ineffective assistance on appeal)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel may winnow out weaker arguments and need not raise every issue)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deferential standard for evaluating counsel's performance)
State v. Elliot, 86 Ohio App.3d 792 (1993) (plea of guilty waives suppression challenges)
State v. Maas, 2007-Ohio-6265 (Greene App. No. 06-CA-117) (sentencing information at hearing proper under RC 2929.19(A))
State v. Payne, 2006-Ohio-2085 (Cuyahoga App. No. 86367) (sentence within statutory range; appellate review preserved)
State v. James, 2005-Ohio-5562 (Cuyahoga App. No. 85638) (sentencing considerations in appeal)
State v. Bogan, 2005-Ohio-3412 (Cuyahoga App. No. 84468) (appellate claims waiver and procedural posture)
State v. Shabazz, 1993-Ohio-63826 (Cuyahoga App.) (waiver principles in appeal)
State v. Johnson, 1997-Ohio-70889 (Cuyahoga App.) (waiver and suppression-related issues on appeal)
State v. Williams, 1991-Ohio-686 (App. 74) (anticipation of law changes not required)
State v. Sharp, 2008-Ohio-5096 (Cuyahoga App. No. 87709) (non-anticipation of future changes in law)