Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Snider

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

May 15, 2017

STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF LORAIN Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER SNIDER Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE LORAIN MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2014TRC04591

          APPEARANCES: DANIELLELA BEARDEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          PATRICK D. RILEY, JEFFREY SZABO, and MALLORY HOLMES, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, Judge.

         {¶1} Christopher Snider appeals his convictions from the Lorain Municipal Court. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Snider was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs ("OVI") in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), OVI refusal in violation of 4511.19(A)(2)(b), driving under OVI suspension in violation of 4510.14(A), and driving outside of marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. The matter proceeded through pretrial and discovery without the filing of a motion to suppress evidence. After a bench trial, the court found Mr. Snider guilty on all of the counts, except the OVI refusal.

         {¶3} Mr. Snider appeals raising one assignment of error.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         APPELLANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO LITIGATE, PRIOR TO TRIAL, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. ACCORDINGLY, APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AS WELL AS HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 10, ARTICLE I, OHIO CONSTITUTION.

         {¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Snider contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress the field sobriety tests because, had a motion been filed, it would have been granted by the trial court.

         {¶5} Failing to file a motion to suppress is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Madrigal 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389 (2000). As with other ineffective assistance of counsel claims, "a defendant 'must show (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the proceeding's result would have been different.'" State v. Clayton, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27352, 2015-Ohio-498, ¶ 25, quoting State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-Ohio-4836, ¶ 62, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 (1984). "'A defendant's failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court's need to consider the other.'" Clayton at ¶ 25, quoting Madrigal at 389.

         {¶6} Prejudice is shown when the defendant proves "that there exists a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different." State v. Bradley,42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph three of the syllabus. "[O]nly an error by counsel that effects the final judgment in a criminal proceeding warrants an appellate court setting aside the trial court's final judgment." Akron v. Buchwald, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21433, 2003-Ohio-5044, ¶ 11, citing Strickland at 691. When a defendant alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress, the defendant must establish not only that there was a basis to suppress the evidence in question, but also "'a reasonable probability that, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.