FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. JACKSON
STATE V. ANDREWS
APPEAL NOS.: C-230660, C-230661
TRIAL NOS.: B-2301917-A, B-2301917-B
KEY WORDS: SEARCH AND SEIZURE – WEAPONS
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err by suppressing evidence of firearms where officers did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Defendants’ vehicle and to effectuate a felony arrest because Defendants did not obstruct official business by driving away from officers without being commanded to stop and because the circumstances otherwise did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. [See CONCURRENCE: The inevitable discovery doctrine may have rendered the warrantless search of guns found in plain view in the backseat of a car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment had the State preserved it for appellate review.] [But See DISSENT: The police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified an investigative stop where the officers had been informed earlier in the day that shots had been fired on the same street as the stop and that tensions were rising between groups of juveniles, it was in a high-crime area, it was rainy and dark when the officers approached the car with tinted windows preventing them from seeing inside, and defendants made furtive movements before fleeing the scene.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, P.J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS SEPARATELY and WINKLER, J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. COOK
APPEAL NOS.: C-240241, C-240243
TRIAL NOS.: B-2204873-B, B-2205972
KEY WORDS: DRUGS — EVIDENCE — SUFFICENCY — WEIGHT — CRIM.R. 11 – SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) – R.C. 2921.331(D)
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for possession of heroin was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where body-worn camera footage showed and an officer testified that defendant was seated next to drugs in plain view, had numerous cell phones around his person, and had a large amount of cash on his person.
Defendant’s guilty plea violated Crim.R. 11(C) and was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the trial court failed to advise defendant that a guilty plea to a failure to comply charge carries a mandatory consecutive sentence under R.C. 2921.331(D).
The trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant at sentencing of the mandatory Regan Tokes Law advisements, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)-(v).
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND CAUSE REMANDED IN C-240241; REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED IN C-240243
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.