State v. Lanier

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Andre Maurice Lanier’s convictions and sentence following his no-contest pleas to drug possession and trafficking charges. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by treating Lanier’s post-remand motion to dismiss or suppress as untimely and denying leave to file it. The appeal also raised ineffective assistance, due process, and alleged vindictive sentencing issues.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lanier leave to file the post-remand motion to dismiss/suppress because the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline expired in 2015, the appointment of new counsel after remand did not restart the deadline, and counsel failed to establish good cause for the delay.
2. Lanier failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate deficient performance resulting in prejudice; post-remand counsel could not file a timely motion after the deadline had expired, and the original counsel's failure to timely litigate the motion became immaterial when Lanier withdrew it in exchange for substantial plea benefits.
3. The increased post-remand sentence did not violate due process because no presumption of vindictiveness arose and the record did not show actual vindictiveness.
4. The trial court did not err in imposing maximum concurrent sentences because the sentences did not exceed the statutory maximums, the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and the appellate court could not independently reweigh those considerations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by treating Lanier's post-remand motion to dismiss/suppress as untimely under Crim.R. 12(D) and by denying leave to file it out of rule.
2. Whether Lanier received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to timely file or properly seek leave to file the suppression motion.
3. Whether the increased sentence imposed after Lanier's successful prior appeal violated due process because it was presumptively or actually vindictive.
4. Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences based on the statutory sentencing purposes, principles, and seriousness and recidivism factors.

Disposition

affirmed