State v. Siggers, 2014 Ohio 506

Siggers was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon while under a disability; the jury also found him not guilty of receiving stolen property, and the trial court merged the two weapon offenses for sentencing.
The gun admitted at trial was not subject to suppression because defense did not file a suppression motion, and the issue is whether that decision fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.
Officer Howell observed Siggers riding a bicycle at night in a bank parking lot without lights, approached him, and identified him as the rider.
Siggers lied about his name, acted nervously, and grabbed toward his waistband when asked to place his hands behind his back, then fled, dropping a loaded handgun.
The appellate court held that the failure to file a suppression motion was not ineffective assistance because there was a reasonable basis to stop Siggers and suppress would have been futile; the convictions were affirmed.
The overall record showed effective assistance and no prejudice to Siggers from counsel’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not seeking suppression?	Siggers.	Siggers.	No; suppression motion would have been futile; counsel acted reasonably.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Mundt, 873 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio 2007) (establishes prejudice requirement in suppression claims)
State v. Williams, 2007-Ohio-4837, 873 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio 2007) (failing to file suppression not per se deficient; must show basis or futility)
State v. Nields, 752 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 2001) (tactical decisions may negate ineffectiveness claims)
State v. Walters, 2013-Ohio-772 (Ohio 2013) (counsel’s strategic decisions can be effective aids to defense)