State v. Slater

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 608

Syllabus

Speedy trial statutory right R.C. 2945.71 guilty plea waiver constitutional right Barker v. Wingo Barker aggravated vehicular assault R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) operating a vehicle while under the influence OVI R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(g) ineffective assistance of counsel motion to suppress blood draw. The defendant waived his statutory speedy-trial right under the Ohio Speedy Trial Act by pleading guilty. After balancing the Barker factors — Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) — there was no violation of the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. While the 20-month delay between the defendant's arrest and his guilty plea was presumptively prejudicial, the vast majority of that delay was attributable to the defendant, the defendant never asserted his right to a speedy trial and there was no actual prejudice to the defense from the delay. The defendant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds and for not filing a motion to suppress blood-draw evidence. The defendant did not challenge the validity of his plea or argue that his plea was less than knowing or voluntary and therefore he presented no basis to reverse his convictions. Moreover, by pleading guilty, the defendant waived an ineffective-assistance claim based on the Ohio Speedy Trial Act. There was no constitutional speedy-trial violation, so a motion to dismiss on that ground would have been meritless. Finally, not filing a motion to suppress is not ineffective assistance per se. We affirm the defendant's convictions.