State v. Miller
2021 Ohio 3882
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Nov. 14, 2017 controlled buy: appellant Otis Miller sold ~1 ounce of meth for $900; ensuing search warrant of his home recovered cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, prescription pills, methadone, firearms, and ammunition.
- Indicted on 14 counts (12 felonies); pleaded guilty to 1st-degree trafficking in cocaine and 2nd-degree aggravated trafficking in drugs; sentenced to 10 and 2 years, respectively, to be served consecutively (12 years total).
- Direct appeal (transcript filed Dec. 19, 2018) affirmed Miller’s sentence; deadline to file a post-conviction petition was Dec. 19, 2019.
- Miller filed a post-conviction petition on Jan. 2, 2020 (amended Jan. 17, 2020); trial court denied it as untimely on Mar. 11, 2021; Miller appealed.
- Miller argued he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the search-warrant-related evidence and raised multiple ineffective-assistance and Fourth Amendment claims (challenge to the traffic stop, inventory search, and counsel’s withdrawal of the suppression motion/coercion of plea).
- The appellate court affirmed: the petition was untimely and Miller failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the relevant facts; alternatively, the record (including a full plea colloquy) showed no ineffective assistance or involuntary plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/jurisdiction of post-conviction petition | State: Petition filed after the 365-day statutory deadline; court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. | Miller: Petition was timely excused because he didn’t learn of the search warrant until after sentencing and was unaware petition procedures until later. | Petition untimely; court lacks jurisdiction because Miller failed to meet statutory exceptions. |
| "Unavoidably prevented" exception to the filing deadline | State: Miller was not unavoidably prevented—record shows counsel filed a suppression motion and prosecution referenced the warrant. | Miller: He was unaware the search warrant existed and thus could not file earlier. | Miller not unavoidably prevented; record shows knowledge of suppression motion and warrant-related evidence. |
| Ineffective assistance for withdrawing suppression motion / failing to obtain or review warrant | State: Even if argued, Miller cannot show counsel breached an essential duty causing prejudice to the voluntariness of the plea. | Miller: Counsel ineffectively withdrew the suppression motion and failed to review/request the warrant, which coerced him into pleading guilty. | Even if timely, claim fails: plea colloquy and record show counsel’s advice and withdrawal were known and the plea was knowing and voluntary. |
| Fourth Amendment challenges to the stop and inventory/search | State: Fourth Amendment issues were waived by the guilty plea; suppression was the subject of counsel’s motion which was withdrawn with defendant’s assent. | Miller: Stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause and the inventory search was pretextual; evidence should be suppressed. | Claims waived by guilty plea; no basis shown to undermine plea’s voluntariness or to excuse untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1982) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims in postconviction context)
- State v. Beaver, 131 Ohio App.3d 458 (11th Dist. 1998) (untimely postconviction petitions must be dismissed without reaching the merits)
- State v. Beuke, 130 Ohio App.3d 633 (1st Dist. 1998) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over untimely postconviction petitions absent statutory exceptions)
- Barnett v. State, 73 Ohio App.3d 244 (2d Dist. 1991) (guilty plea waives certain post-conviction claims unless plea’s voluntariness was affected)