State v. Ward, 2012 Ohio 3446

Ward was convicted in Scioto County Common Pleas Court of ten charges related to a pharmacy robbery; Nelson implicated Ward as getaway driver leading to Ward's custody in Lancaster, Ohio.
Ward gave an unrecorded statement to Detective Conkel on March 15, 2010 during transport, and a recorded statement on March 16, 2010 in which he claimed Nelson forced participation.
The state disclosed Ward’s March 15 and March 16 statements in response to discovery on May 4, 2010.
At trial, Detective Conkel testified about both statements; the jury found Ward guilty on all counts after merging applicable counts and sentencing.
Ward appeals asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a suppression motion challenging the March 15, 2010 statement; the trial court’s admission of that statement is challenged as a violation of Miranda waivers.
The appellate court rejected Ward’s claims, holding no basis existed to suppress the March 15, 2010 statement and that counsel’s performance was not deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not filing a suppression motion for the March 15 statement?	Ward	Ward claims suppression was warranted under Miranda waiver requirements	No basis to suppress; counsel not ineffective
Did Ward knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive Miranda rights for the March 15 statement?	Ward	Ward could not prove waiver without evidence of understanding rights	Waiver inferred from totality of circumstances; no suppression; no ineffective assistance

State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (1988) (ineffective-assistance standard; two-prong test (deficient performance and prejudice))
State v. Norman, 2009-Ohio-5458 (4th Dist.) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio cases)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Hall, 2007-Ohio-6091 (4th Dist.) (requires showing of deficient performance and prejudice; per se not established by failure to file suppression)
State v. Brown, 2007-Ohio-4837 (4th Dist.) (failure to file suppression not automatically ineffective; must show suppressible basis)
State v. Lather, 2006-Ohio-4477 (Ohio Supreme Court) (Miranda right understanding may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252 (1988) (totality-of-circumstances can show waiver of rights)
State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 (2004-Ohio-6548) (reiterates totality-of-circumstances approach)
State v. Dixon, 101 Ohio St.3d 328 (2004-Ohio-1585) (enumerates factors for voluntary and intelligent waiver)
State v. Eley, 77 Ohio St.3d 174 (1996) (discusses totality of the circumstances in waiver analysis)
Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469 (1980) (requires showing knowing and intelligent waiver for Miranda)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. _ (2010) (holding that waiver can be inferred from understanding and response to rights)
Fryerson, 2003-Ohio-6041 (8th Dist.) (no suppression where totality shows understanding of rights)