2016 Ohio 5760
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Anthony Hopper was charged in five municipal cases with voyeurism (R.C. 2907.08(D)) for taking pictures under the dresses of five women.
- A bench trial began November 4, 2015; on the morning of trial Hopper sought to file a motion to dismiss arguing R.C. 2907.08(D) is overbroad and unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied leave to file the untimely pretrial motion, finding the request not warranted "in the interest of justice."
- Trial proceeded; the court convicted Hopper on three counts and found attempted voyeurism on two counts, imposing an aggregate 18-month jail sentence.
- On appeal Hopper raised (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hear the late motion to dismiss and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hopper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an untimely pretrial motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds | The court properly exercised discretion under Crim.R. 12(D); denial was reasonable given prejudice to witnesses and procedural posture | Hopper argued the court should have allowed the late motion because R.C. 2907.08(D) is facially overbroad | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not timely filing the motion to dismiss | State contended no prejudice shown; statute is not substantially overbroad | Hopper argued counsel’s failure prejudiced him because a successful pretrial ruling could have changed the outcome | Court: Even assuming deficient performance, Hopper failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard adopted)
- Akron v. Rowland, 67 Ohio St.3d 374 (1993) (overbreadth doctrine and First Amendment breathing space)
- Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (facial overbreadth requires substantial application to protected conduct)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (definition and limits of overbreadth)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Mahoning Educ. Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 137 Ohio St.3d 257 (2013) (presumption of constitutionality; courts should construe statutes to avoid invalidation)