State v. David
2017 Ohio 1102
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Neighbor reported an ammonia-like odor and frequent garage activity at 128 Uselma Ave.; neighbor provided a vehicle plate and observed people entering/exiting the garage.
- Officer Nelson checked the residence, found no one initially, later contacted bedridden owner Norman by phone; Norman invited officers inside and consented to a garage search.
- Officers smelled marijuana in the house, used a key to open the locked garage, and observed marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
- Officers heard voices and saw lights in the basement, announced their presence, and conducted a protective sweep; they discovered a large marijuana grow operation and then found appellant upstairs.
- A warrant was obtained and executed; various drugs and drug-manufacturing items were seized. Appellant was indicted on multiple counts, pleaded guilty to one count (illegal manufacture, R.C. 2925.04), and later moved pre-sentencing to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress.
- The trial court denied the motion; the court of appeals affirmed, holding appellant failed to show Strickland prejudice and that consent and the protective sweep supported admission of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea based on ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress | Counsel was not ineffective or, even if deficient, appellant cannot show prejudice under Strickland because evidence would not have been suppressed (consent + lawful protective sweep) | Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion; a motion likely would have succeeded and changed proceedings | Affirmed: no Strickland prejudice shown; denial of motion to withdraw plea was not an abuse of discretion |
| Lawfulness of warrantless entries (consent to garage search; protective sweep/exigent circumstances) | Entry/search valid: Norman voluntarily consented to garage search; discovery justified protective sweep for officer/owner safety | Warrantless entry/search/seizure violated Fourth Amendment; no exigent circumstances and warrant could/should have been obtained | Court found consent valid and protective sweep reasonable under circumstances; concurrence noted plea makes suppression claim largely moot; dissent thought suppression likely merited relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (sets standard of review for Crim.R. 32.1 plea withdrawal) (pre-sentence withdrawals reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (establishes four-factor test courts use when ruling on pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consent searches and voluntariness principles)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (applies Bustamonte in Ohio; voluntariness not dependent on showing knowledge of right to refuse)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entries presumptively unreasonable)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (probable cause alone cannot justify warrantless home entry absent exigent circumstances)
- Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (exigent-circumstances doctrine requires probable cause plus exigency for warrantless home entry)