State v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Champaign County · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawGuilty PleasCrim.R. 11Ineffective Assistance of CounselSuppression MotionsCrim.R. 11(C)guilty pleano contest plea

Facts

Brooks was charged with multiple drug-related offenses, attempted evidence tampering, and multiple counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop. He moved to suppress the evidence, but the trial court denied the motion. He then entered a negotiated agreement under which he pleaded guilty to one third-degree-felony OVI count and the State dismissed all other charges. The trial court accepted the plea, found him guilty, and imposed a 48-month prison sentence, including 60 mandatory days.

Issue

Did Brooks' guilty plea become invalid because the trial court did not advise him during the Crim.R. 11(C) colloquy that a guilty plea would waive appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion? Also, did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by allegedly advising Brooks to plead guilty rather than no contest, thereby forfeiting appellate review of the suppression issue?

Rule

Under Crim.R. 11(C), a trial court is not required to inform a defendant that a guilty plea waives the right to challenge pretrial suppression rulings on appeal. A defendant also cannot establish ineffective assistance on the theory that counsel advised a guilty plea rather than a no-contest plea when the record is silent about counsel's advice and when the plea was negotiated, absent evidence that the State would have offered the same concessions in exchange for a no-contest plea.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, police found pills in Lena Ortiz’s car after a traffic stop. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress, Lena accepted a plea deal and pleaded guilty to one felony count; during the plea colloquy, the judge did not say that a guilty plea would prevent her from appealing the suppression ruling.

On direct appeal, Lena argues her plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the judge failed to warn her that the guilty plea waived appellate review of the suppression ruling. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The plea remains valid. Under the majority opinion, although a guilty plea does waive the ability to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal, that consequence is not among the matters the trial court must address under Crim.R. 11(C). The omission alone therefore does not invalidate the plea. (Derived from State v. Brooks (n.d.).)