State v. Hurtado, 2017 Ohio 1465

Jose F. Hurtado was indicted for possession of more than 40,000 grams of marijuana; he moved to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless vehicle search.
The trial court denied the suppression motion after a multi-day hearing; Hurtado later pled guilty to the lesser-included offense (20,000–40,000 grams) pursuant to a plea agreement.
At plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; Hurtado acknowledged waiving appellate rights to challenge pretrial rulings.
Sentenced to the five-year mandatory term for the reduced felony and ordered to pay a mandatory $7,500 statutory fine; the court found Hurtado was not indigent for purposes of the fine.
Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief; this court appointed new counsel, identified two non-frivolous issues (trial counsel effectiveness re: failing to obtain an ability-to-pay hearing and the fine), and new counsel briefed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Hurtado to plead guilty and waive suppression issues	State: Plea was knowing and voluntary after full Crim.R. 11 colloquy; plea yielded benefit (lesser offense and lower exposure)	Hurtado: Counsel’s failure to pursue suppression issues and to preserve them rendered counsel ineffective and caused waiver of meritorious suppression claims	Overruled — plea complied with Crim.R. 11; guilty plea waived suppression claims absent proof plea was involuntary; no showing plea was unknowing or involuntary
Whether trial court erred in imposing the mandatory $7,500 fine on an indigent defendant	State: Hurtado did not file a pre-sentence affidavit asserting inability to pay the mandatory fine; court properly considered PSI and found he was employable and could pay in future	Hurtado: He was indigent, had very low reported income and ongoing obligations, and cannot reasonably pay the fine	Overruled — affidavit did not expressly allege inability to pay the mandatory fine; trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hurtado could pay in the future and imposing the fine

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel to file a brief when no meritorious issues exist)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate court’s independent review when counsel files Anders brief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance governs voluntariness of guilty plea)
State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1992) (guilty plea waives ineffective-assistance claims except to extent they affected plea voluntariness)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 1991) (guilty plea waives appealable trial errors unless plea was involuntary)
State v. Ward, 187 Ohio App.3d 384 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court must consider indigency/ability to pay mandatory fines; procedure discussed)