2019 Ohio 2545
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2017 Ruggiero pleaded no contest in Akron Municipal Court to assault; he received a fine, 180 days jail with all but four days suspended, probation, and a no-contact order.
- Two months later he was indicted in Summit County for domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A); the indictment alleged a prior conviction that enhanced the charge to a fourth-degree felony.
- Ruggiero moved to dismiss, arguing it was not customary that an assault conviction would enhance a later domestic-violence charge and that his municipal-court counsel failed to advise him that the prior conviction could be used for enhancement.
- The trial court denied the motion; Ruggiero pleaded no contest to the felony domestic-violence charge and received two years of community control.
- On appeal Ruggiero argued the denial violated his due-process and related constitutional rights because his prior plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel rather than a knowing, counseled proceeding.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Ruggiero had not made a prima facie showing that the prior conviction was uncounseled and that collateral attacks based on alleged ineffective assistance are foreclosed by controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Ruggiero's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may collaterally attack prior conviction used for enhancement on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel | Municipal-court counsel failed to advise that assault plea could enhance a later domestic-violence charge, so prior conviction is subject to collateral attack | Collateral attack is limited to prior uncounseled convictions; alleged ineffective assistance does not permit collateral attack for enhancement | Denied: collateral attack allowed only for uncounseled convictions; ineffective-assistance claim insufficient |
| Whether Ruggiero made a prima facie showing that the prior conviction was uncounseled | Argued functional lack of counsel due to failure to advise on enhancement risk | Ruggiero acknowledged he had counsel in municipal court; no prima facie showing of uncounseled plea | Denied: no prima facie showing; burden did not shift to State |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brandon, 45 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 1989) (defendant may collaterally attack uncounseled prior conviction used for enhancement; defendant must make prima facie showing)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 2007) (burden shifts to State to prove waiver of counsel when defendant shows prior uncounseled conviction that resulted in confinement)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (collateral attack for enhancement limited to prior uncounseled convictions; ineffective-assistance claims are not permitted in this context)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (right to counsel for indigent defendants)
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1967) (unconstitutional prior convictions used to enhance subsequent sentences implicate right to counsel)