State v. Curless
2014 Ohio 1493
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Tony Curless was indicted on two counts of second-degree robbery; he moved to suppress evidence and the trial court denied the motion.
- Curless pleaded guilty to both robberies as reduced third-degree felonies and was sentenced to concurrent 24-month prison terms.
- At plea hearing the court asked defense counsel and Curless on the record whether entering guilty pleas waived pretrial motions (including the suppression motion); both counsel and Curless acknowledged the waiver.
- Curless later appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise that a guilty plea waived appeal of the suppression ruling and (2) that the 24-month sentence was contrary to law for various reasons (failure to consider mitigation, disproportionality to codefendants, and omission of earned-credit notice).
- The trial court found Curless more culpable than codefendants (physical assault, taking money and a backpack), noted his juvenile record and lack of genuine remorse, and imposed prison time while codefendants received community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising plea that waived appeal of suppression ruling | Prosecutor (State) argued plea waiver was valid and counsel’s performance was not deficient | Curless argued counsel failed to inform him that pleading guilty waives appeal of suppression and that he would have pleaded no-contest to preserve the suppression issue | Court held plea waiver was knowing and voluntary; counsel’s performance not deficient; assignment overruled |
| Whether guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | State: colloquy shows waiver and opportunity to confer with counsel | Curless: plea prevented appellate review of suppression ruling he wished to pursue | Court held colloquy and counsel acknowledgment show Curless knowingly waived suppression challenge by pleading guilty |
| Whether 24-month concurrent sentences are contrary to law (failure to consider mitigation/proportionality) | State: sentence supported by record, offender more culpable and not remorseful | Curless: court failed to consider mitigating R.C. factors and sentence disproportionate to codefendants’ sanctions | Court held sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; record supports prison term due to greater involvement, record, and lack of remorse |
| Whether sentencing court erred by not advising about earned-credit eligibility | State: statutes amended removing duty to inform after Sept 2012 | Curless: court should have informed him of potential earned-credit eligibility under former statutes | Court held statutory amendment eliminated obligation; no duty to inform at sentencing; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (guilty-plea prejudice standard under Strickland)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (standard for vacating guilty pleas and related appellate review)