State v. Woolum
| Decision Date | 20 January 1976 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.3d 383 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v WOOLUM, Appellant. 1 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an attorney neglects to file a motion to suppress evidence, which at least arguably could dispose of a criminal charge against his client, the client is deprived of the assistance of competent counsel.
Thomas A. Luebbers, Paul J. Gorman, Cincinnati, and John L. Hanselman, Jr., for appellee.
George W. Clark, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal; the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Hamilton County Municipal Court; the transcript of the Proceedings; and the assignments of error, briefs and oral arguments of counsel.
Defendant, the appellant herein, was arrested and charged with the possession of an hallucinogen-a violation of R.C. 3719.-41. In view of our ultimate disposition of the assignments of error, it seems unnecessary to set forth the facts leading up to defendant's arrest.
At the trial, defendant's counsel objected to the admission into evidence of the marijuana allegedly taken from defendant's person and the possession of which gave rise to his arrest. However, a motion to suppress evidence was never filed. The marijuana was admitted into evidence and defendant was found guilty. Subsequently, defendant obtained other counsel who filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.
The first of the two assignments of error reads:
'The trial court erred in denying Defendant's oral motion to suppress pursuant to Rule 12(G), and in not suppressing the evidence presented by the prosecution, for the reason that the prosecutor was on notice of the objection to the evidence on the basis that it arose from an illegal search and seizure in violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.'
We note initially that defendant's trial counsel made no oral motion to suppress, the first assignment of error notwithstanding. Rather, there was simply an objection to the admission of the marijuana into evidence. Without a motion to suppress, there exists no rule of evidence which prevented the admission of the exhibit (marijuana) into evidence.
Crim.R. 12 reads, in part:
'(3) Motions to suppress evidence, including but not limited to statements and identification testimony, on the ground that it was illegally obtained * * *.' (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that this rule was not complied with, and such failure amounted to a waiver of the motion under Crim.R. 12(G), which provides:
Although an examination of the record of the proceedings reveals no specific request by counsel for the defendant for relief from the waiver mandated in Crim.R. 12(G), we elect to consider defendant's objection to the evidence as a request for such relief. However, we feel compelled to conclude that the court below did not abuse its discretion by enforcing Crim.R. 12(B)(3).
The first assignment of error must be overruled. For us to hold otherwise would be to flaunt the purpose of Crim.R. 12(B) and significantly dilute its operation.
The second assignment asserts:
'The trial court erred in entering a finding of guilty when the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel.'
We believe that the correct standard to be used in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...to suppress would have been granted, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on this basis must fail. Id.; State v. Woolum (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 313, 354 N.E.2d 712. {¶ 45} In this matter, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of the first assignment of error, we conclude that ......
-
State v. Douglas Mandrbah
... ... as the first trial is concerned, this failure constitutes a ... waiver of his right to object to the introduction of this ... evidence under Crim. R. 12(G). State v. Wade (1978), ... 53 Ohio St. 2d 182, 373 N.E.2d 1244; State v. Woolum ... (1st Dist. 1976), 47 Ohio App. 2d 313, 354 N.E.2d 712. As to ... the circumstances under which the failure to file the motion ... to suppress before the trial, as in the instant second trial, ... may be waived under Crim. R. 12(G), see State v ... Murphy, Nos ... ...
-
State v. Clary
...then, defendant argues for a per se rule similar to the Hamilton County rule for motions to suppress. See State v. Woolum (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 313, 1 O.O.3d 383, 354 N.E.2d 712. Assuredly, the responsibilities of counsel extend to protecting the client's speedy trial rights. State v. Gwin......
-
State v. Darrell Murphy
...to suppress this evidence interposed at trial. Our conclusion in this regard is not inconsistent with our earlier pronouncement in State v. Woolum, supra. Woolum court affirmed the trial court's overruling of the accused's untimely motion to suppress on the grounds that the objection was wa......