[Cite as State v. Sanders, 2021-Ohio-275.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CLERMONT COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

DONTA LAMONT SANDERS, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2020-06-033 

O P I N I O N 

2/1/2021 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 2019CR0000893 

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 S. Riverside 

Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee 

W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 302 E. Main 

Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellant 

 S. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Donta Lamont Sanders, appeals the decision of the Clermont 

County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons outlined 

below, we affirm the trial court's decision. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} On April 9, 2012, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issued a 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 2 - 

judgment entry sentencing Sanders to seven years in prison. This sentence was imposed 

by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas as a result of Sanders' guilty plea to one 

count of felonious assault. Within that same judgment entry, the Hamilton County Court of 

Common Pleas also sentenced Sanders to three years of community control. This sentence 

was imposed as a result of Sanders' guilty plea to one count of endangering children. The 

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas ordered the two sentences to be served 

consecutively. By ordering the sentences to be served consecutively, the Hamilton County 

Court of Common Pleas noted that Sanders' three-year community control term would begin 

only after Sanders was released from prison on that seven year prison term. This judgment 

entry was issued by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton C.P. Case 

No. B 1107010. 

{¶ 3} On January 7, 2019, Sanders was released from prison. Shortly thereafter, 

on January 16, 2019, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issued an entry that 

noted Sanders' three-year community control term would run from January 7, 2019 to 

January 11, 2022. There is no dispute that the terms of Sanders' community control 

prohibited Sanders from owning, possessing, or carrying a firearm or other lethal weapon. 

There is also no dispute that the terms of Sanders' community control required Sanders to 

immediately notify his probation officer of any change in his home address, i.e., that he was 

no longer living with his sister in Hamilton County. 

{¶ 4} Late in the day on August 14, 2019, Sanders' probation officer, Probation 

Officer Brian Urban, received information that Sanders was not living with his sister in 

Hamilton County as he had claimed, but was instead living with his girlfriend and her 

children in Clermont County. P.O. Urban also received information that Sanders may be in 

possession of a firearm. The next morning, on August 15, 2019, P.O. Urban contacted 

Agent Chris Wilson with the Clermont County Narcotics Unit for assistance. Following an 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 3 - 

investigation into Sanders' whereabouts, a warrant was issued for Sanders' arrest based 

on allegations that Sanders had violated the terms of his community control. There is no 

dispute that the warrant for Sanders' arrest was executed on August 16, 2019 following a 

traffic stop of Sanders' vehicle initiated by officers from the Clermont County Sheriff's Office. 

{¶ 5} Following Sanders' arrest, P.O. Urban conducted a search of Sanders' 

residence. The search was conducted in accordance with P.O. Urban's authority granted 

to him under the terms of Sanders' community control as Sanders' probation officer. 

According to P.O. Urban's arrest summary, the search of Sanders' residence resulted in the 

discovery of a .45 Smith & Wesson firearm under the mattress where Sanders' personal 

property (including Sanders' probation paperwork) was located.1 The search also resulted 

in the discovery of an ammunition magazine in the pocket of Sanders' pants located a short 

distance away from where the firearm was located. 

{¶ 6} Subsequent to this search, Sanders was transported to the Hamilton County 

Justice Center. Once there, Sanders telephoned his sister. During this call, Sanders 

admitted that the firearm discovered during the search of his residence belonged to him. 

Specifically, as P.O. Urban stated in his arrest report: 

In a later jail call to the defendants (sic) sister, he described to 

her where the gun was found although that information was 

never relayed to Mr. Sanders. They also discussed trying to 

convince [Sanders' girlfriend] to tell the probation department it 

was her gun in order to get him out of trouble. 

{¶ 7} On August 21, 2019, a notice was filed with the Hamilton County Court of 

Common Pleas alleging Sanders had violated the terms of his community control. These 

violations included, but were not limited to, Sanders' possession of the firearm discovered 

 

1. We note that contrary to P.O. Urban's arrest summary, Agent Wilson stated in his investigative report that 

the firearm was actually discovered in Sanders' "dresser drawer * * * wrapped up in Sanders' clothing." 

However, despite this discrepancy, there is no dispute that the firearm and ammunition magazine discovered 

during the search of Sanders' residence did, in fact, belong to Sanders. 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 4 - 

during the search of his residence on August 16, 2019. 

{¶ 8} On August 29, 2019, Sanders filed a motion with the Hamilton County Court 

of Common Pleas requesting the court amend its April 9, 2012 judgment entry "by vacating 

the requirement of community control and dismissing the community control violations." To 

support this claim, Sanders relied on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. 

Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246. The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in 

Hitchcock was released on August 15, 2019, the day prior to Sanders' arrest. 

{¶ 9} In Hitchcock, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "unless otherwise authorized

by statute, a trial court may not impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to 

be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count." Id. at ¶ 1. 

Therefore, according to Sanders, because the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

did not have the "statutory authority" to order his three year community control term to be 

served consecutively to his seven year prison term in its April 9, 2012 judgment entry, (1) 

its judgment entry "was void from its inception," (2) the judgment entry should be amended 

to vacate his three-year community control term, (3) he "should not be required to remain 

on community control in this case," and (4) any pending violation of his community control 

should be dismissed. 

{¶ 10} On September 17, 2019, the Clermont County Grand Jury returned an 

indictment charging Sanders with one count of having weapons while under disability in 

violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). As stated in the bill of particulars, the charge arose based 

on the following: 

[O]n August 16, 2019 in Clermont County, Ohio, officers 

assisted [the] Hamilton County Probation Department in the 

arrest of the defendant, who had an active warrant. A search of 

the defendant's residence was conducted and a .45 Smith and 

Wesson handgun was located. Once at the Hamilton County 

Justice Center, the defendant admitted possession of the 

handgun over the phone. The defendant has prior convictions 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 5 - 

for Felonious Assault, Domestic Violence, and Aggravated 

Assault. 

This indictment was issued in the case before us, Clermont C.P. Case No. 2019 CR 00893. 

{¶ 11} On October 7, 2019, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issued a 

decision on Sanders' motion to amend its April 9, 2012 judgment entry. In that decision, 

the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas noted that it had held a hearing and 

determined that Sanders had violated the terms of his community control. Based upon this 

finding, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas noted that it had then revoked 

Sanders' community control and sentenced Sanders to serve seven years in prison for 

felonious assault. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas also noted that it had 

sentenced Sanders to serve seven years in prison for endangering children. The Hamilton 

County Common Pleas Court then noted that it had ordered the two sentences to be served 

concurrently, awarded Sanders with seven years of jail-time credit, terminated Sanders' 

community control, and dismissed Sanders' community control violation. 

{¶ 12} On February 11, 2020, Sanders filed a motion to suppress with the trial court. 

Similar to the motion that he had filed with the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, 

Sanders argued that the search of his residence was unlawful because the sentence 

imposed by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in 2012 ordering him to serve his 

three-year community control term consecutive to his seven year prison sentence "was void 

from its inception" based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hitchcock. Therefore, 

according to Sanders, because the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas' decision 

sentencing him to three-year community control term was "void," P.O. Urban's "supervision 

and authority to search" his residence was also void and anything discovered in the search 

of his residence was subject to the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed. 

{¶ 13} On March 10, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on Sanders' motion to 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 6 - 

suppress. Because the facts were generally not in dispute, the trial court did not hear any 

witness testimony at this hearing. The trial court instead heard legal arguments from both 

parties regarding what impact, if any, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hitchcock had 

on P.O. Urban's ability to conduct a search of Sanders' residence given the fact that 

Hitchcock rendered Sanders' three-year community control term "void." The trial court also 

heard arguments as to whether the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 

{¶ 14} To assist the trial court, the parties submitted three joint exhibits and eight 

joint stipulations of fact. Those eight stipulations of fact submitted to the trial court are as 

follows: 

1. Agent Chris Wilson and Hamilton County Probation Officer 

Brian Urban are not licensed attorneys. 

2. Agent Wilson and his fellow officers in the Clermont County 

Narcotics Unit and P.O. Urban and his fellow Probation Officers

are not in the practice of monitoring the Ohio Supreme Court's 

website for case law updates. 

3. At no time on August 15, 2019 or August 16, 2019 were Agent 

Wilson or P.O. Urban aware of the Ohio Supreme Court's 

decision in State v. Hitchcock. 

4. No Hamilton County judicial official or court staff ever 

contacted P.O. Urban about the status of Defendant's 

community control pursuant to State v. Hitchcock. 

5. On August 16, 2019, Agent Wilson was unaware of any of the 

details regarding Defendant's probation for case Number B 

1107010, other than being told by P.O. Urban that Defendant 

was on probation to Hamilton County and they had a warrant for 

his arrest. 

6. P.O. Urban and his fellow probation officers in Hamilton 

County do not question Judges about their decisions to place 

someone on probation, they merely supervise the individuals 

that are placed on probation through the court system. 

7. P.O. Urban received the information regarding Defendant's 

possible address and firearm possession late in the day on 

August 14, 2019, and he contacted Agent Wilson for assistance 

the morning of August 15, 2019. 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 7 - 

8. P.O. Urban conducted a search of Defendant's residence, 

which led to the discovery of the firearm, pursuant to his ability 

as a Probation Officer to search the residence of any individual 

that is supervised by the Hamilton County Probation 

Department. 

{¶ 15} On March 25, 2020, the trial court issued a decision denying Sanders' motion 

to suppress. In so holding, the trial court determined that "[e]ven if the search at issue in 

this case was unwarranted, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule clearly 

applies." Expounding on its holding, the trial court stated: 

Under the circumstances of the case at hand, the Court finds 

that the possibly unwarranted search at issue was conducted 

with absolutely no culpability on the part of law enforcement. 

Thus, suppressing the resulting evidence would have zero 

deterrent effect on future Fourth Amendment violations. 

Hitchcock was decided on August 15, 2019. The search of the 

Defendant's residence took place the very next day. As the 

State notes, law enforcement officers cannot be expected to 

read and comprehend the ramifications of decisions by the Ohio 

Supreme Court within 24 hours of the announcement of those 

decisions. 

{¶ 16} Continuing, the trial court stated: 

Here, the actions of the [Hamilton County Probation 

Department] and the Clermont County Sheriff's Department 

were objectively reasonable and conducted in good faith. There

was information that the Defendant had committed infractions of

his probation, the [Hamilton County Probation Department] 

obtained an arrest warrant, and surveillance was conducted to 

confirm the information. Further, at the time the search was 

conducted, the [Hamilton County Probation Department] and 

the Clermont County Sheriff's Department had absolutely no 

reason to believe that the Defendant's community control 

sentence was legally void. In fact, that determination was not

made by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas until 

October 7, 2019. 

{¶ 17} On May 8, 2020, Sanders entered a plea of no contest to the indicted charge 

of having weapons while under disability. After conducting the necessary Crim.R. 11 plea 

colloquy, the trial court accepted Sanders' no contest plea upon finding Sanders had 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 8 - 

entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Based upon the underlying facts 

offered by the state, the trial court then found Sanders guilty as charged. The trial court 

then held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Sanders to serve an 18-month prison term. 

The trial court also ordered the firearm discovered during the search of Sanders' residence 

be destroyed as contraband. Sanders now appeals, raising a single assignment of error 

challenging the trial court's decision to deny his motion to suppress. 

Motion to Suppress Standard of Review 

{¶ 18} Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed 

question of law and fact. State v. Gray, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-176, 2012-Ohio4769, ¶ 15, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. When 

considering a motion to suppress, the trial court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position 

to weigh the evidence to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness credibility. State 

v. Vaughn, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2014-05-012, 2015-Ohio-828, ¶ 8. Therefore, when 

reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court is bound to accept the trial court's 

findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Durham, 

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-03-023, 2013-Ohio-4764, ¶ 14. "'An appellate court, 

however, independently reviews the trial court's legal conclusions based on those facts and 

determines, without deference to the trial court's decision, whether as a matter of law, the 

facts satisfy the appropriate legal standard.'" State v. Frost, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2018-

11-023, 2019-Ohio-3540, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Cochran, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2006-10-

023, 2007-Ohio-3353, ¶ 12. 

The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Applies 

{¶ 19} As noted above, Sanders claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to 

suppress. To support this claim, Sanders' argues that because his three-year community 

control term was "void" from its inception given the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 9 - 

Hitchcock, P.O. Urban's authority to search his residence pursuant to the authority granted 

to him under the terms of Sanders' community control as Sanders' probation officer was 

also "null and void."2 However, even if we were agree to Sanders' claim that P.O. Urban's 

authority to search his residence became "null and void" upon the Ohio Supreme Court's 

release of its decision in Hitchcock, the trial court did not err by finding the good faith 

exception to the exclusionary rule clearly applies to the case at bar. 

Rule of Law: The Exclusionary Rule 

{¶ 20} "Generally, evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search or 

seizure will be excluded under the exclusionary rule." State v. Adkins, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. 

CA2014-02-036 and CA2014-06-141, 2015-Ohio-1698, ¶ 48. The exclusionary rule is "'a 

deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained by way of 

a Fourth Amendment violation.'" State v. Dibble, 159 Ohio St.3d 322, 2020-Ohio-546, ¶ 14, 

quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 231-232, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011). "However, 

under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, where police act objectively and in 

a 'reasonable-good faith belief' that their conduct is lawful, the evidence from these 

searches will not be excluded." Id., citing State v. Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136, 2014-Ohio5021, ¶ 40-42; and United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984). 

{¶ 21} "'To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently 

deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such 

deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.'" State v. Commins, 12th Dist. 

Clinton Nos. CA2009-06-004 and CA2009-06-005, 2009-Ohio-6415, ¶ 25, quoting Herring 

v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009). Therefore, "[s]ince the purpose 

 

2. Given Sanders' arguments, this decision offers no opinion as to whether Sanders' three-year community 

control term was void or merely voidable given the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hitchcock. We 

nevertheless note that according to the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Harper, Slip Opinion 

No. 2020-Ohio-2913, a sentence is void only where the "sentencing court lacks jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused." Id. at ¶ 42. 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 10 - 

of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, evidence obtained from a search 

should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, 

or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the 

Fourth Amendment." State v. Morse, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2001-11-099 and CA2001-

11-100, 2002-Ohio-3873, ¶ 24, citing Leon at 919. 

Analysis 

{¶ 22} As stated previously, the trial court found the "possibly unwarranted search" 

of Sanders' residence by P.O. Urban was conducted "with absolutely no culpability on the 

part of law enforcement." We agree. 

{¶ 23} The Ohio Supreme Court released its decision in Hitchcock on August 15, 

2019. The search of Sanders' residence took place the very next day, August 16, 2019. 

The parties' joint stipulation of fact specifically notes that neither Agent Wilson nor P.O. 

Urban are licensed attorneys who were in the practice of monitoring the Ohio Supreme 

Court website for case law updates. The same is true as it relates to the other agents and 

probation officers in the Clermont County Narcotics Unit and the Hamilton County Probation 

Department. The parties' joint stipulation of fact also notes that neither Agent Wilson nor 

P.O. Urban were aware of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hitchcock at any time prior 

to Sanders' residence being searched. The parties' joint stipulation of fact further notes that 

no Hamilton County judicial official or court staff ever contacted P.O. Urban about the status 

of Sanders' community control in light of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hitchcock. 

{¶ 24} Considering that even the most seasoned attorneys often lack the skillset 

necessary to understand the potential ramifications that a decision issued by the Ohio 

Supreme Court may have within 24 hours of its release, the same would certainly be true 

for law enforcement officers like Agent Sanders and P.O. Urban who are not licensed 

attorneys who engage in the practice of law. Therefore, just as the trial court found, 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 11 - 

because there was no reason for anyone involved in the search of Sanders' residence to 

believe Sanders' three-year community control term had been rendered "void" at the time 

P.O. Urban conducted the search of Sanders' residence, "suppressing the resulting 

evidence would have zero deterrent effect on future Fourth Amendment violations." 

Accordingly, since the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, 

something which did not occur here, we find no error in the trial court's decision denying 

Sanders' motion to suppress upon finding the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule 

clearly applies to the case at bar. 

State v. Fleming is Not Binding on this Court 

{¶ 25} In so holding, we note that Sanders argues this court should reverse the trial 

court's decision based on the Second District Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Fleming, 

2d Dist. Clark No. 2012 CA 59, 2013-Ohio-503. However, although Fleming presents a 

somewhat similar factual scenario to the facts at issue here, "[i]t is well-established that we 

are generally only bound by the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court and by past precedent 

produced by our own district, not those decisions from [any of] the other eleven appellate 

districts." State v. Ertel, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-12-109, 2016-Ohio-2682, ¶ 9. 

Therefore, rather than the Second District's decision in Fleming, we choose to instead follow 

the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1, 2015-Ohio1565, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court found "[t]he exclusionary rule should not be applied 

when 'the official action was pursued in complete good faith' because it would have no 

deterrent effect." Id. at ¶ 97, citing State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 331, quoting Leon, 

468 U.S. at 919. We also choose to follow the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. 

Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136, 2014-Ohio-5021, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court found 

"the good-faith exception should be applied 'where new developments in the law have 

upended the settled rules on which the police relied.'" Id. at ¶ 48, quoting United States v. 
Clermont CA2020-06-033 

 - 12 - 

Sparks, 711 F.3d 58, 68 (1st Cir.2013). Accordingly, finding no merit to any of the 

arguments advanced by Sanders' herein, Sanders' single assignment of error lacks merit 

and is overruled. 

{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed. 

 M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.