State v. Santiago
195 Ohio App. 3d 649
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Santiago was stopped for driving left of center; he failed field sobriety tests and recorded a blood alcohol level of .147.
- Kunkleman inventoryed Santiago’s car after arrest and found crack cocaine in the glove box; Santiago gave a custodial statement claiming the crack was his to earn holiday money.
- Santiago was indicted for trafficking in drugs and initially moved to suppress evidence; the trial court overruled the suppression motion and he pled no contest.
- A day after pleading, Santiago sought to withdraw the plea; at sentencing the court denied withdrawal and later remanded to address the motion.
- The court sentenced Santiago to three years in prison with license suspension and restitution; this conviction is on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and field sobriety tests were justified by reasonable suspicion | Santiago argues officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend stop for sobriety tests. | Santiago contends the traffic stop alone did not justify field sobriety testing. | Reasonable, articulable suspicion supported field sobriety tests; suppression denied. |
| Whether Santiago was lawfully seized for the purposes of the field sobriety tests | Episodic seizure occurred without probable cause before testing. | Detention was justified by reasonable suspicion established by officer. | Detention justified by reasonable suspicion; no suppression of test results. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the plea given dissatisfaction with counsel | Santiago expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney during Crim.R. 11 colloquy. | The court failed to inquire into the merits of the dissatisfaction; withdrawal should be allowed. | Plea withdrawal required a full/ fair hearing; remanded for such a hearing on the pre-sentencing motion. |
| Whether the pre-sentence motion to withdraw the plea was adequately addressed | Hearing at sentencing was insufficient to explore reasons for withdrawal and potential counsel deficiency. | Minimal, non-meritorious inquiry suffices; no ineffective assistance found. | Hearing inadequate; remand to conduct proper hearing on withdrawal grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre-sentencing withdrawal standard and factors)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (Ohio App.3d 1995) (liberal standard for withdrawal; full hearing required)
- State v. Satterwhite, 2009-Ohio-6593 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (not every complaint about counsel triggers inquiry)