State v. Hopings
2019 Ohio 1486
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On May 8, 2016, Telly Hopings shot and killed E.B.; he led police on a vehicle and foot chase and discarded the gun. He was indicted on aggravated murder, murder, failure to comply, and tampering with evidence.
- Jury trial began January 29, 2018; on day two Hopings entered a guilty plea under North Carolina v. Alford to murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)) and a firearms specification in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts.
- The state submitted a statement of the evidence it would have presented at trial; the court accepted the Alford plea and sentenced Hopings to life with parole eligibility after 15 years on the murder conviction and three years on the firearm specification.
- Hopings appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) plea should be vacated because the court failed to elicit his reasons for pleading guilty while professing innocence; (2) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress custodial statements (he claimed delusions/PTSD impeded Miranda waiver); (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising he could appeal the suppression denial after an Alford plea and for not advising a no-contest plea.
- The Sixth District reviewed the plea colloquy, signed plea form, counsel’s statements, and the state’s evidence summary and concluded the trial court adequately ensured the plea was intelligent and voluntary.
- The court held that an Alford plea waives the right to challenge a suppression ruling and found no record support for Hopings’s ineffective-assistance claims; it affirmed the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Hopings’ Argument | State’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Alford plea must be vacated because the court did not personally elicit Hopings’ reasons for pleading guilty while protesting innocence | Court failed to directly ask Hopings his reasons and thus did not ensure a rational decision | The plea colloquy, signed plea form, counsel’s statement, and state’s evidence summary sufficiently showed a rational calculation to accept the plea | Denied — plea valid; court adequately ascertained reasons and voluntariness |
| Whether denial of suppression of custodial statements was appealable after an Alford plea | Denial was erroneous because Hopings’ PTSD/delusions prevented valid Miranda waiver; court should have suppressed statements | An Alford plea operates like a guilty plea and waives appellate review of suppression rulings | Denied — Alford plea waived challenge to suppression ruling |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising Hopings he could appeal suppression denial after Alford plea | Counsel misled Hopings about ability to appeal and failed to advise a no-contest plea instead | No record evidence counsel misadvised Hopings or that a no-contest plea was offered; performance and prejudice not shown | Denied — ineffective assistance not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (permits guilty plea while maintaining innocence; plea must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings required to effectuate valid waiver)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (citing Strickland standard as applied in Ohio)
- State v. Sanders, 94 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 2002) (definition of reasonable probability for prejudice)