State v. Palacios, 2018 Ohio 3523

On May 20, 2012, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Deshuk responded to a single-vehicle crash in Elyria; the driver (Palacios) and a passenger were transported to the hospital and the passenger later died. The trooper smelled alcohol at the scene.
During medical treatment, hospital staff drew Palacios’ blood; Trooper Deshuk later requested the hospital records under R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) and received the blood-alcohol test results by fax without a warrant. No search warrant was ever obtained.
Palacios was indicted on two aggravated vehicular-homicide counts and two OVI/blood-alcohol counts. He moved to suppress the blood-test results; the trial court denied the motion. Palacios filed a second suppression motion (also denied).
Palacios entered no-contest pleas to all counts while expressly stating the plea was to “preserve the appellate issues” regarding suppression. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him, acknowledging Palacios’ intent to appeal the suppression ruling.
On appeal the Ninth District considered whether the no-contest plea waived review and whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered given the parties’ shared (but mistaken) belief that the suppression issue remained appealable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless seizure of Palacios’ blood-test results violated the Fourth Amendment / Ohio Constitution and whether the suppression issue was forfeited by a no-contest plea	State argued the appellate court should address the suppression issue on the merits (did not assert forfeiture)	Palacios argued the warrantless acquisition of his blood-test results was an unreasonable search and that he preserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling by entering a no-contest plea reserved for appeal	Court held the plea process was undermined by an erroneous, shared belief that the suppression ruling was appealable; vacated the plea and conviction and remanded so Palacios may proceed to trial or enter a new plea fully advised of rights

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (a plea is not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when entered under the shared, erroneous impression that a nonappealable trial-court ruling can be appealed)