State v. Greer
2013 Ohio 4267
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Jan. 2, 2012, George Greer was found slumped in a running vehicle after a collision; witnesses and officers observed signs of intoxication and he refused field sobriety tests and breath testing. He was arrested and, because of prior OVI convictions, submitted to a mandatory nonconsensual blood draw at a hospital.
- Greer was indicted on multiple counts including two felony OVI counts (one alleging BAC .17+), driving under suspension, possession of marijuana, and failure to control; the OVI counts included a mandatory-prison specification alleging five or more prior OVI convictions within 20 years.
- Greer pleaded guilty to minor counts (marijuana possession and failure to control); a jury convicted him on the remaining counts and found the prior-conviction specification proven.
- On appeal Greer raised five assignments of error: ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress blood test results and to challenge OAC compliance), challenges to admission and sufficiency of prior-conviction documents (State’s exhibits 21–27), and plain error in admitting blood results and prior-judgment exhibits.
- The court held counsel was not ineffective: (1) Greer never filed a pretrial motion to suppress, so the State was not required to prove OAC substantial compliance and counsel’s choice was a permissible strategy; (2) counsel was not deficient in failing to contest the warrantless blood draw given then-controlling precedent and the statutory nonconsensual-draw authorization.
- The court also held the State properly proved Greer’s prior OVI convictions: the certified entries complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and other documents (dockets, tickets, chain-of-custody form and matching identifiers) provided sufficient identity evidence to permit a rational juror to find five+ prior OVI convictions within 20 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Greer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress blood-test results or challenging OAC compliance | Counsel’s strategic choice to not suppress did not deprive defendant of effective assistance; no record showing strategy was unreasonable | Counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress blood results and to challenge OAC substantial compliance | Not ineffective: no deficient performance shown and decision was a permissible trial strategy; failure to move to suppress waived pretrial challenge so State need not prove compliance |
| Whether warrantless nonconsensual blood draw violated Fourth Amendment after McNeely | State relied on Ohio statute authorizing nonconsensual draw for repeat OVI offenders; prevailing precedent controlled at trial | McNeely requires case-by-case exigency analysis; counsel should have challenged warrantless draw | No deficiency: counsel followed controlling precedent/statute; appellate record insufficient to show McNeely-based prejudice |
| Whether prior- conviction documents (State Exhibits 21–27) complied with Crim.R. 32(C) | Certified judgment entries and supporting documents complied with Crim.R. 32(C) or were admissible by other permissible methods | Entries were defective and police testimony failed to adequately identify Greer as same person in prior cases | Held admissible: entries complied with Crim.R. 32(C); identity proved by matching name, DOB, SSN (or other identifiers) across exhibits and chain-of-custody forms |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the mandatory-prison prior-conviction specification (5+ OVIs in 20 years) | Documentary evidence plus officer testimony provided sufficient circumstantial and direct identifiers for a rational juror to find the prior convictions | State failed to prove identity of defendant in prior cases beyond a reasonable doubt | Sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find the element proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio discussion of Strickland and consideration of prongs)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (admissibility of alcohol test results requires methods approved by Director of Health and suppression procedure)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (no per se exigency for nonconsensual blood draws; exigency is case-specific)
- State v. Gwen, 134 Ohio St.3d 284 (R.C. 2945.75(B)(1) allows proving priors by judgment entries but entries must comply with Crim.R. 32(C) when used)
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (motion to suppress required to preserve certain regulatory challenges)