a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

ineffective assistance of counsel Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "ineffective assistance of counsel"

Ohio DUI Law: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Sometimes despite the best efforts of a skilled and competent DUI attorney, a client will be forced to endure an outcome they do not like.  When this happens there Is a natural and understandable desire to place blame.  We field many calls, mostly after a conviction, seeking an opinion about an attorney’s performance.  Some ask whether or not we would be willing to undertake an appeal.  To date, our answer has always been an emphatic “No!”The purpose of this article is two-fold; the first is to re-emphasize the importance of selecting the best attorney for your case right at the...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: Failure to File a Motion To Suppress

Should You File A Motion to Suppress?In State v. Thomas, 2011-Ohio-1987 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. 2011), the Defendant was convicted of felony OVI after a jury trial.  No motion to suppress was filed and it was determined during the jury trial that the officer wasn't sure whether he turned off his overhead lights during the horizontal gaze nystagmus portion of the standardized field sobriety tests, but stated that it was normal to do so.  An argument exists that doing the test in this manner should result in suppression of the test as the phenomenon of optokinetic...

Continue reading

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...

Continue reading