State v. Stewart

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5802

Syllabus

Motion for continuance; abuse of discretion; motion to suppress; search warrant; inevitable-discovery exception. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to continue his trial. Nor did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence where that evidence would have inevitably been discovered. Finally, we decline to find that the defendant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel's conduct during his direct examination of the defendant and closing arguments, regardless of whether that conduct amounted to deficient performance or mere unconventional trial tactics. Moreover, trial counsel did not perform deficiently when he did not move to suppress evidence or move for a mistrial based on the seizure of the defendant's cell phone because there is no indication that the motion to suppress would have been granted or that a motion for mistrial probably would or should have been granted.