State v. Suarez
2015 Ohio 64
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Freddy Suarez pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (first-degree felony); other charges were dismissed. He received the three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
- Suarez filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
- He alleged counsel failed to properly challenge the search-warrant basis and failed to file an effective motion to suppress evidence from the search.
- The trial court denied the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing; Suarez appealed arguing denial of due process.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the petition set forth sufficient operative facts to require a hearing and whether counsel’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Suarez’s postconviction petition | Suarez: trial court should have held a hearing because counsel was ineffective and plea involuntary | State: petition and record do not show sufficient operative facts to require a hearing; trial court may rule without one | Court: No hearing required — petition failed to allege sufficient operative facts showing ineffective assistance and prejudice |
| Whether counsel’s failure to file or adequately pursue a suppression motion was per se ineffective assistance | Suarez: counsel’s failure to attack the warrant/suppress evidence coerced plea | State: failure to file/succeed on suppression is not per se deficient; motion must have been likely to succeed | Court: Not per se ineffective; record shows counsel filed motions and the warrant had ample support, so no deficient performance shown |
| Whether Suarez showed prejudice under Hill/Strickland (would have gone to trial) | Suarez: but-for counsel’s errors he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on trial | State: Suarez did not demonstrate a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial | Court: No reasonable probability shown; prejudice not established |
| Whether the trial court erred by ruling without the state’s response | Suarez: state’s failure to respond requires remand | State: court may rule without response; defendant’s remedy is to move for ruling without response | Court: No abuse — trial court properly ruled without the state’s response per Manning |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (postconviction petition denies automatic hearing; court may dismiss when record and filings fail to show operative facts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires reasonable probability defendant would have pleaded differently)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (failure to file a suppression motion is not per se ineffective assistance)
- State ex rel. Manning v. Montgomery, 39 Ohio St.3d 140 (Ohio 1988) (court may rule on filings even if the state fails to respond; movant can seek ruling without response)