FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE LORAIN MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2014TRC04591
APPEARANCES: DANIELLELA BEARDEN, Attorney at Law, for
PATRICK D. RILEY, JEFFREY SZABO, and MALLORY HOLMES,
Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN, Judge.
Christopher Snider appeals his convictions from the Lorain
Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
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.
Mr. Snider appeals raising one assignment of error.
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,
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.
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.
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, ...