Ohio DUI Law: State v. Barron (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)

State v. Barron, 2010-Ohio-1632, CA2009-04-105 (OHCA12)

This case involves the issue of whether an attorney was ineffective in providing the defendant a defensebecause he didn”t challenge the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test by filing a motion to suppress  or object on foundational grounds during trial.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, an appellant must show that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that appellant was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Prejudice exists where there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Id. at 694. A “reasonable probability” is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of appellant’s trial. Id.

Here, “the state presented overwhelming proof of all elements of the offenses of which was charged and convicted, and therefore cannot demonstrate the existence of a reasonable probability that, but for his defense counsel’s alleged errors, the result of his trial would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.”