State v. Barker

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 5251

Syllabus

POSTCONVICTION PETITION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — PLEA — CIV.R. 60(B) — EXCUSABLE NEGLECT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the dismissal of his postconviction petition where defendant met all three requirements for relief: defendant filed his motion within the one-year time period, defendant had a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his suppression hearing to present, and defendant's failure to attach the expert's report to the petition or seek a stay following the State's response to the petition constituted excusable neglect where defendant's postconviction counsel had previously filed a notice with the court explaining defendant's intent to amend the petition to add the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim after receiving the expert's report in support and explained that the delay was caused by postconviction counsel being unaware that a suppression hearing had occurred prior to defendant's plea hearing when notice of the suppression hearing and the entry denying the suppression motion was never docketed. The common pleas court abused its discretion by granting defendant's petition for postconviction relief where the court failed to engage in the proper prejudice inquiry with respect to defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate whether he could effectively waive his right to self-incrimination based on his intellectual disability: where defendant had entered pleas of no contest, the proper prejudice inquiry was not limited to whether defendant's suppression motion would have been granted but whether, if the motion to suppress defendant's statements had been granted, would defendant have declined to enter the his no-contest pleas and insisted on going to trial.