State v. Derricoatte
2013 Ohio 3774
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Indicted in July 2005 on three counts: trafficking in cocaine near a school, possession of cocaine, and permitting drug abuse.
- Plea negotiations in December 2005 amended count 1 to trafficking as a lesser-included offense; appellant pled guilty to the amended charge; other counts were dismissed.
- During the plea hearing, appellant entered an Alford plea acknowledging doubt about guilt.
- Presentence investigation delayed sentencing; in 2006 appellant was sentenced to two years’ community control, then later imprisoned for 15 months after violating it.
- Appellant learned his brother’s motion to suppress had been granted in a separate case and claimed he should receive the same relief; counsel allegedly said it was too late.
- In May 2012, appellant, pro se, moved to withdraw the plea arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel; trial court denied the motion, deeming the plea voluntary based on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the post-sentence plea withdrawal properly denied on ineffective-assistance grounds? | Derricoatte argues counsel’s faulty suppression advice prevented a knowing plea. | Derricoatte argues counsel’s advice led to an involuntary Alford plea. | Yes, the motion was properly denied on ineffective-assistance grounds. |
| Did the trial court err in denying withdrawal of the Alford plea based on alleged involuntariness? | Derricoatte asserts lack of proper colloquy due to Alford status. | State contends the record shows voluntary plea and proper procedure. | No, no reversible error; plea upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio (1985)) (standard for ineffective assistance in guilty pleas (deficient performance and prejudice))
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. (1985)) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty pleas applied to prejudice inquiry)
- State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio (1985)) (concerning voluntariness and effective-assisted plea standards)
- State v. Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio (1995)) (standing and privacy/privacy-based suppression considerations)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. (1961)) (exclusionary rule basis for suppression challenges)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. (1978)) (standing and reasonable expectation of privacy analysis)
- State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio (1997)) (university of standing and suppression rights for overnight guests)
- Dennis/Olson line of standing cases, Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91; State v. Nevins (U.S./Ohio (1990s)) (standing to challenge searches; limitations on third-party standing)