State v. Gettings, 2017 Ohio 7764

Defendant Leon Gettings was indicted on three counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)) for sexual conduct with T.W., a girl in eighth grade who had a third-grade level of comprehension; indictment period: Aug. 24, 2011–June 10, 2012.
Gettings initially pled guilty in 2013, later withdrew the plea, had multiple counsel changes, and filed/withdrew several suppression motions; a bench trial occurred Feb. 29–Mar. 1, 2016.
The State presented eleven witnesses (including the victim, her mother, nurses, and forensic evidence); Gettings was the lone defense witness.
Evidence supporting convictions included the victim’s testimony about oral and other sexual acts, the mother’s eyewitness account to oral sex on June 10, 2012, Gettings’ written admission about kissing the victim’s genital area, and DNA from the victim’s underwear matching Gettings.
The trial court found Gettings guilty on all three counts and sentenced him to concurrent ten-year terms; he was designated a Tier III sex offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency & manifest weight of evidence	State: evidence (victim testimony, mother’s observation, victim disclosures, DNA, Gettings’ written admission) proves elements of rape beyond a reasonable doubt	Gettings: challenges sufficiency/weight, disputes elements (primarily sexual conduct)	Court: Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel’s choices were tactical and within professional norms; defendant fails to show deficient performance or prejudice	Gettings: claims counsel gave inadequate direct exam, failed to subpoena witnesses, stipulated to DNA, withdrew suppression motions, and waived jury trial	Court: No deficient performance nor prejudice under Strickland; all claims meritless
Suppression motions / plain error	State: motions were discussed, many were withdrawn; court did not refuse hearing but noted untimeliness and mootness after withdrawal	Gettings: contends court committed plain error by refusing to hear a motion to suppress as untimely	Court: No plain error—record shows motion was withdrawn and court did not refuse to hear it
Jury waiver timing/validity	State: waiver made in open court and is presumptively knowing and voluntary	Gettings: suggests waiver was unwise and part of poor strategy	Court: Waiver was knowing/voluntary; tactical decision not ineffective

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (deference to factfinder on credibility and demeanor)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (standard for evaluating witness credibility)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective assistance)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (adopts Strickland two-prong test in Ohio)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (withdrawing suppression motion not necessarily ineffective assistance)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (written jury-waiver presumptively knowing and voluntary)