[Cite as State v. Martin, 2024-Ohio-10.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTWUAN MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230236

TRIAL NO. B-2104272

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause 

 Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 5, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

BOCK, Judge.

{¶1} Cincinnati police detectives involved in a gun-and-drug investigation 

intercepted a “jail call” made by the investigation’s primary target. The target

instructed the listener to remove contraband from a residence on Crestview Avenue in 

Hamilton County, Ohio (“the residence”). That day, officers watching the residence

saw defendant-appellant Antwaun Martin leave the residence with a bookbag. After 

they stopped and searched Martin’s vehicle, officers found a large quantity of 

marijuana in the bookbag and a gun in the vehicle. The trial court denied Martin’s 

motion to suppress. 

{¶2} Because we hold that the officers had probable cause to search Martin’s 

vehicle, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

I. Facts and Procedure

{¶3} The state indicted Martin on four counts: trafficking in marijuana under 

R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), possession of marijuana under R.C. 2925.11(A), improperly

handling firearms in a motor vehicle under R.C. 2923.16(B), and carrying concealed 

weapons under R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). 

{¶4} Martin moved to suppress the drugs and gun that officers found when 

searching his vehicle, asserting (1) there was no evidence that Martin committed a 

traffic violation; (2) if there had been a traffic violation, officers lacked reasonable 

suspicion to search Martin and his vehicle; (3) if reasonable suspicion had been 

established, officers conducted a more intrusive search than is permitted under Terry 

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and (4) officers lacked 

probable cause to arrest Martin. Martin also moved to suppress statements, but the 

trial court granted that motion and his statements are not at issue in this appeal.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

The Suppression Hearing

{¶5} The state presented Cincinnati Police Officers Pitts’s and 

Schildemeyer’s body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage and Pitts’s testimony.

{¶6} The BWC footage showed Martin’s stopped car and officers exiting from 

their vehicles to approach Martin’s vehicle. As Martin began to exit from the vehicle, 

Schildemeyer ordered him to stay in the car and put his hands on the driver-side door. 

Schildemeyer told Martin that he saw Martin make a turn without a signal. 

{¶7} Martin admitted that he had a gun in the vehicle. Pitts took Martin to a

cruiser to read him his Miranda rights. Another officer searched the inside of the 

vehicle and found a firearm, two jars of marijuana, and a red bookbag containing a 

third jar of marijuana and a scale. 

{¶8} Pitts testified that he was a uniformed officer assisting with gun-anddrug investigations on the day of Martin’s arrest. Plainclothes officers asked him to 

conduct a traffic stop on Martin. According to Pitts, Martin had received a jailhouse 

phone call from the primary target of a gun-and-drug investigation instructing Martin 

to remove contraband from the residence. On cross-examination, however, Pitts 

conceded that no one had told him who the primary target had called. Investigators 

told Pitts that they had observed Martin leave the residence with a backpack and get 

into a pickup truck. Other officers told Pitts that they observed Martin commit a traffic 

violation. 

{¶9} When Pitts initiated the traffic stop, Martin was “a little slower to stop,” 

and he began to exit from his vehicle after he stopped. Because this was a drug 

investigation and Martin attempted to exit from the vehicle, Pitts was concerned that 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

Martin may attempt to fight or run. Pitts testified that he immediately pulled Martin 

from the vehicle and handcuffed him “for our safety as well as his.”

The trial court denied Martin’s motion to suppress evidence

{¶10} The trial court made the following factual findings: (1) the primary 

target of the drug-and-gun investigation called Martin from jail and instructed him to 

remove contraband from the residence; (2) detectives who were surveilling the 

residence saw Martin exit from it carrying a backpack; (3) the detectives who observed 

Martin leave the residence relayed the information about the jail call and Martin’s 

movements to Pitts; and (4) Pitts ran Martin’s license plate in reliance on this 

information to verify that he was stopping the correct person.

{¶11} The trial court determined that Pitts had probable cause to search 

Martin’s car. It found that Pitts’s concern about his and others’ safety based on his 

suspicion that Martin had guns was valid because Pitts had learned that the 

investigation involved drugs and guns, Martin was slow to pull over his vehicle, and

Martin immediately began to exit from the vehicle after he was stopped. The trial court 

concluded that the stop was supported by probable cause and denied Martin’s motion 

to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle, the marijuana and the gun.

{¶12} Martin entered a no-contest plea. The trial court sentenced him to three 

years of community control. Martin has appealed.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶13} Martin assigns two errors, asserting that the trial court should have 

suppressed the evidence found in his vehicle and should have merged allied offenses 

of similar import. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

A. The trial court properly overruled Martin’s motion to suppress the 

physical evidence

{¶14} Martin’s first assignment of error argues that the trial court erroneously 

denied his motion to suppress. Appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Madden, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-210537, 2022-Ohio-2638, ¶ 3. We must accept the trial court’s 

findings of fact as true if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. This 

court then independently determines whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal 

standard. Id. Therefore, this court conducts a de novo review of the trial court’s 

application of those facts to the law. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. 

{¶15} Martin argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the 

traffic stop. He argues that the officers improperly ordered him out of the vehicle and 

arrested him. And he asserts that even if the stop of his vehicle had been valid, officers 

lacked probable cause to search his vehicle. 

1. Probable-cause standard 

{¶16} “[W]here an officer has an articulable reasonable suspicion or probable 

cause to stop a motorist for any criminal violation, including a minor traffic violation, 

the stop is constitutionally valid regardless of the officer’s underlying subjective intent 

or motivation for stopping the vehicle.” City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 

11-12, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). Because probable cause is a higher standard than 

reasonable suspicion, police officers who have probable cause “necessarily ha[ve] a 

reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime.” State v. Haynes, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-140205, 2015-Ohio-3432, ¶ 20. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

{¶17} Probable cause is an objective standard. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 

146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). An officer has probable cause when 

the officer possesses “objective facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant by a 

magistrate.” State v. Curry, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210274, 2022-Ohio-627, ¶ 20. 

Establishing probable cause does not require an actual showing of illegal activity; 

rather, it “requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity.” State 

v. Thorton, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170586 and C-170587, 2018-Ohio-2960, ¶ 21, 

quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 243, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), fn. 

13.

{¶18} A court may consider “the collective knowledge of police officers 

involved in a common investigation” when ruling on a motion to suppress. State v. 

Houston, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190598, 2020-Ohio-5421, ¶ 62. When a policeradio broadcast provides a law-enforcement officer with information that creates

reasonable grounds to believe a crime was committed, the officer has probable cause 

to make an arrest. Id.

2. Probable cause supported Pitts’s stopping Martin’s vehicle

{¶19} Martin argues that Pitts lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Martin’s 

car, pointing to Pitts’s inability to remember certain facts leading to Martin’s arrest 

and questioning Pitts’s credibility involving whether an officer observed Martin 

commit a traffic violation. 

{¶20} The trial court found that this was an investigatory stop and cited the 

information shared between officers via police radio and telephonic communications 

before the stop. It found that officers had told Pitts that the primary target of the drugand-gun investigation had called Martin from jail and instructed him to retrieve 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

contraband from the residence, that they had been watching the residence, and that 

they saw Martin exit from the residence with a backpack before leaving in his vehicle. 

{¶21} The trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent, credible 

evidence. And we hold that these factual findings establish probable cause for Pitts to 

have believed that Martin committed a criminal offense, which justified Pitts’s 

stopping Martin’s car. Stopping Martin’s car did not violate his Fourth Amendment 

rights.

3. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permitted 

officers to search Martin’s vehicle

{¶22} The United States and Ohio Constitutions prohibit unreasonable 

searches and seizures. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 369, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 

L.Ed.2d 769 (2003); State v. Ward, 2017-Ohio-8141, 98 N.E.3d 1257, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.).

A court determines whether a search was reasonable by examining the totality of the 

circumstances. Ward at ¶ 14. Such determinations depend on the facts and 

circumstances of each case. Id. The state bears the burden of establishing the validity 

of a warrantless search. State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368, 2018-Ohio-201, 

96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 18.

{¶23} “In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within 

a specific exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Burroughs, 169 Ohio St.3d 

79, 2022-Ohio-2146, 202 N.E.3d 611, ¶ 13, quoting Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 

382, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). The automobile exception permits lawenforcement officers to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle “when they have 

probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of illegal activity.” State v. 

Jackson, 171 Ohio St.3d 412, 2022-Ohio-4365, 218 N.E.3d 790, ¶ 28. Therefore, the

state must establish that the officer had “probable cause to believe that the vehicle 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

contains contraband or other evidence that is subject to seizure, and exigent 

circumstances necessitate a search or seizure.” State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 367, 

582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). 

{¶24} Warrantless vehicle searches have been held to be reasonable given the 

mobility of vehicles, which “ ‘can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction * 

* *.’ ” State v. Lewis, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220457, 2023-Ohio-3036, ¶ 11, quoting 

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 806, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), 

quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1932). 

Knowledge that a vehicle was used recently in a crime “creates an immediate need to 

act, before the automobile can be removed.” State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

90050, 2008-Ohio-3453, ¶ 10. The scope of the search extends to “every part of the 

vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.” Lewis at ¶ 11, 

quoting Ross at 825. 

{¶25} Here, the facts established probable cause for Pitts to believe that 

Martin was engaged in illegal activity and the evidence of that activity was inside of his 

vehicle. The trial court found that other officers relayed to Pitts that they were

conducting a drug investigation; they intercepted a jail call from the primary target of 

that investigation; they heard the target instruct Martin to remove contraband from a 

residence; and they saw Martin leave that residence with a backpack, get into his 

vehicle, and drive away. 

{¶26} Because Pitts had probable cause to believe Martin’s vehicle contained 

evidence of illegal activity, officers’ search of Martin’s vehicle did not violate his Fourth 

Amendment rights. We overrule Martin’s first assignment of error.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

9

B. The trial court should have merged the trafficking and possession of 

marijuana counts

{¶27} Martin’s second assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by 

failing to merge the trafficking and possession counts and by failing to merge the

improperly-handling-a-firearm-in-a-motor-vehicle and carrying-a-concealedweapon counts.

1. Martin forfeited all but plain error

{¶28} The trial court sentenced Martin to a total of three years of community 

control. It noted that the trafficking and possession counts “probably * * * would 

merge,” but it did not merge those counts. Martin did not object or otherwise raise the 

issue of allied offenses to the trial court. When an accused fails to raise allied offenses 

of similar import before the trial court, this court reviews for plain error. State v. 

Murph, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150263, 2015-Ohio-5076, ¶ 5.

{¶29} Therefore, Martin must demonstrate that there was an obvious error 

that affected the outcome of the case. State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 3. A court may reverse a plain error “only under exceptional 

circumstances to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio 

St.3d 72, 83, 656 N.E.2d 643 (1995). 

2. Allied offenses of similar import 

{¶30} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to

be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio995, 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 10. This protection is also guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution,

Article I, Section 10. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against “multiple

punishments for the same offense.” State v. Brasher, 2022-Ohio-4703, 218 N.E.3d 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

10

899, ¶ 39.

{¶31} Allied offenses of similar import are offenses committed with the same 

animus, in the same time frame, and are so similar that an offender committing one 

offense necessarily means the offender committed the other offense. State v. Bishop, 

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220231, 2023-Ohio-947, ¶ 14. When a defendant’s conduct 

meets the elements of multiple offenses, the defendant may be convicted of all offenses 

when “any one of the following is true: (1) the conduct constitutes offenses of 

dissimilar import, (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately, 

or (3) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed with separate animus.”

Ruff at 13. R.C. 2941.25 precludes separate convictions for allied offenses of similar 

import.

3. The trial court should have merged Martin’s convictions for

trafficking in and possessing marijuana 

{¶32} Martin argues, and the state concedes, that Martin’s trafficking-inmarijuana and possessing-marijuana counts should have merged. We agree. 

{¶33} Martin’s convictions for trafficking in marijuana in violation of R.C. 

2925.03(A)(2) and possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) were based 

on the officers’ discovery of marijuana in Martin’s vehicle in an amount that was larger

than as permitted for personal use in Ohio.

{¶34} “By its nature, a drug-trafficking offense under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), 

which requires that the offender knowingly ‘[p]repare for shipment, ship, transport, 

deliver, prepare for distribution, or distribute a controlled substance,’ necessarily 

includes some degree of possession.” Murph, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150263, 2015-

Ohio-5076, at ¶ 7. Because the trial court’s error was obvious, and affected the outcome 

of the case, we sustain the portion of Martin’s second assignment of error alleging that
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

11

his convictions for possession of marijuana and trafficking in marijuana should have 

been merged.

4. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to merge 

Martin’s gun charges 

{¶35} The trial court convicted Martin of carrying a concealed weapon under 

R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), which states, “No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed 

on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand * * * a handgun,” and improper 

handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle under R.C. 2923.16(B), which provides, “No 

person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such 

a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without 

leaving the vehicle.” 

{¶36} This court has held that offenses are committed separately when the 

defendant’s conduct satisfies all elements of one offense before committing the second 

offense. State v. Jewell, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200046, 2021-Ohio-1108, ¶ 14; see

State v. Schmidt, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-068, 2019-Ohio-3990, ¶ 27. And this 

court has held that under some sets of facts, but not all sets of facts, carrying a 

concealed weapon and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle may be allied 

offenses of similar import. See State v. Collins, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220147, 2022-

Ohio-4353, ¶ 21.

{¶37} It is unclear why the trial court did not merge the counts. The trial court 

may have erroneously believed that the two counts could not be merged. Or the trial 

court may have determined that Martin had already completed all elements of carrying 

a concealed weapon before he got into the car with the gun. But because Martin is 

entitled to only a plain-error review, and we cannot say that the trial court made an 

obvious error, we overrule the portion of Martin’s assignment of error asserting that 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

12

the trial court should have merged the carrying-a-concealed-weapon and improperhandling-of-a-firearm-in-a-motor-vehicle counts.

{¶38} We overrule in part and sustain in part Martin’s second assignment of 

error.

III. Conclusion

{¶39} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial 

court’s judgment. We reverse the sentences entered on the counts for possession of 

and trafficking in marijuana. We remand this matter to the trial court to permit the

state to elect which of these allied offenses to pursue against Martin for sentencing and 

for the trial court to resentence on that count. We affirm the remainder of the trial 

court’s judgment. 

Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.