2022 Ohio 452
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Collins was indicted on four charges including possession of a fentanyl-related compound and carrying a concealed weapon; he moved to suppress a warrantless stop and vehicle search.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress after a hearing.
- Collins and his trial counsel entered guilty pleas to two counts in exchange for dismissal of the other two counts; Collins was sentenced to two years of intensive supervision community control.
- Appellate counsel later moved to withdraw the guilty pleas, asserting Collins had intended to preserve an appeal of the suppression ruling and that trial counsel failed to advise that a guilty plea waives that right.
- Trial counsel admitted she had told Collins he would need to plead no-contest to preserve the suppression issue but nonetheless permitted guilty pleas; Collins and appellate counsel both stated Collins intended to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw; the appellate court reversed, holding trial counsel was ineffective for allowing guilty pleas without re‑advising Collins that those pleas waived his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Collins's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of plea (Crim.R. 11) | Trial court complied with Crim.R.11; court not required to advise that guilty plea waives appellate challenges to pretrial rulings | Pleas were unknowing because Collins believed he preserved the right to appeal the suppression denial | Crim.R.11 colloquy was adequate; plea voluntariness claim overruled |
| Ineffective assistance for permitting guilty plea vs. no-contest | No prejudice shown because Collins did not show he would have prevailed on suppression appeal | Counsel failed to re‑advise that guilty pleas waive appeal; Collins would have pled no-contest and appealed if advised | Counsel rendered ineffective assistance; prejudice shown because Collins would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised |
| Requirement to show state would have agreed to no-contest on same terms | State argued lack of proof he would have received same plea preservation | Collins argued he would have pled no-contest to all counts (not just sought same deal) | Court found defendant need not show state would have offered same terms because he would have pled no-contest to all counts |
| Denial of motion to withdraw pleas | Trial court found no basis to allow withdrawal | Collins sought withdrawal based on ineffective assistance and mistaken belief about appeal rights | Moot after finding ineffective assistance; judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery, 71 N.E.3d 180 (Ohio 2016) (Crim.R.11 plea-advice requirements)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims when plea is involved)
- State v. Xie, 584 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio 1992) (standard for withdrawing guilty pleas and ineffective-assistance framework)
- State v. Frazier, 60 N.E.3d 633 (Ohio App. 2016) (analysis of no-contest vs. guilty plea preserving pretrial issues)