State v. Strickland
2014 Ohio 5451
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Carl Strickland was tried for aggravated burglary with a firearm specification; after three days of jury trial he agreed to plead guilty to the aggravated burglary with firearm specification with no agreed sentence.
- Strickland entered his guilty plea on January 10, 2013; he moved orally to withdraw the plea before sentencing and later filed a written motion asserting he had not been afforded a preliminary hearing.
- At the presentence withdrawal hearing, Strickland testified that he wanted a preliminary hearing and a better plea deal; he also criticized his counsel’s handling of plea negotiations.
- The trial court then called Strickland’s defense counsel as a witness, questioned counsel under oath about discovery, plea offers, and his representation, and did not appoint substitute counsel for Strickland while counsel testified.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, found counsel competent, and later sentenced Strickland to consecutive prison terms; the appellate court found the trial court’s decision to call defense counsel without providing new counsel violated the Sixth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strickland was denied effective assistance of counsel at the presentence motion-to-withdraw hearing | State: counsel’s questioning was to clarify facts; no conflict or prejudice shown | Strickland: counsel became conflicted/adversarial when his client challenged counsel, and the court’s calling of counsel forced counsel to testify against client | Reversed: calling defense counsel to testify without appointing new counsel violated Sixth Amendment; assignment of error sustained |
| Whether prejudice must be shown when counsel has a conflict | State: even if ineffective assistance, no prejudice shown | Strickland: an actual conflict existed so prejudice should be presumed | Held: where counsel actively represented conflicting interests, prejudice is presumed per Cuyler/Strickland framework |
| Whether the trial court adequately conducted Crim.R. 11 and a full hearing on the motion | State: court had full Crim.R.11 colloquy and extensive hearing | Strickland: hearing was tainted because counsel could not advocate while testifying; right to counsel at critical stages violated | Held: although other factors considered, the procedural error of calling counsel without providing substitute counsel required reversal and remand for new hearing |
| Whether trial court should have sua sponte appointed substitute counsel before questioning defense counsel | State: no explicit requirement; court sought to avoid privilege issues | Strickland: court should have appointed new counsel whenever counsel might be called to testify against client | Held: court erred by not providing substitute counsel before eliciting testimony from defense counsel; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance framework and discussion of prejudice; special rule when conflict of interest exists)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (prejudice presumed where counsel actively represented conflicting interests)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appellate counsel withdrawing when no meritorious issues)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland ineffective-assistance standard)
- Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (Eighth Dist. 1980) (factors for evaluating pre-sentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- New York v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (court must appoint new counsel before eliciting testimony from defense counsel that is adverse to client)