[Cite as State v. Woods, 2018-Ohio-3352.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

JOEL W. WOODS, JR. 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 28838 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 2017-01-0302 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: August 22, 2018 

 

CALLAHAN, Judge. 

{¶1} Joel Woods, Jr. appeals from his convictions in the Summit County Common 

Pleas Court. This Court reverses. 

I. 

{¶2} Around 1:00 in the morning on January 24, 2017, Cuyahoga Falls Police Officer 

Gregory Koch stopped a car for what he described as a marked lanes violation. The car had three 

people in it – the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a back-seat passenger. Mr. Woods was the 

front-seat passenger. 

{¶3} Officer Koch requested identification from all three occupants and learned that 

none of them had a valid driver’s license. Consequently, Officer Koch and additional officers, 

who had arrived on scene, decided to have the car towed. The driver indicated that the car was 

owned by his girlfriend, who lived in Warrensville Heights. 
2 

 

{¶4} Officer Koch further learned that the driver and Mr. Woods had outstanding 

warrants. Mr. Woods’ warrant contained a caution “about having a weapon in a drive-by 

shooting.” Officer Koch had Mr. Woods step out of the car and conducted a pat down search. As 

a result of that search, a bag of marijuana was discovered in Mr. Woods’ pocket. Officer Koch 

informed Mr. Woods of his Miranda rights and placed him in his cruiser. 

{¶5} Officer Koch also had the other occupants exit the car, and he began to search it. 

Officer Koch testified that multiple things were happening at once and that the other officers 

finished the inventory search and tow report. As the other officers were searching the car, they 

found a loaded gun under the center console. 

{¶6} When Officer Koch asked Mr. Woods about the gun, Mr. Woods indicated that he 

wanted to speak to his attorney. Officer Koch returned Mr. Woods to the back seat of his cruiser. 

Officer Koch conferred with the other officers, and they decided to charge the driver and Mr. 

Woods for the gun. After that, Officer Koch returned to his police cruiser and informed Mr. 

Woods that he was under arrest. Mr. Woods asked if he was the only one being arrested, and 

Officer Koch responded that they were also charging the driver. Mr. Woods then stated that the 

gun was his. 

{¶7} Mr. Woods was indicted for improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, a 

fourth-degree felony, and possession of marijuana, a minor misdemeanor. Mr. Woods pleaded 

not guilty and moved to suppress the evidence against him. Following a hearing and additional 

briefing from the parties, the trial court denied the suppression motion. 

{¶8} Thereafter, Mr. Woods withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded no contest to the 

charges. The trial court accepted his no contest plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him 

accordingly. 
3 

 

{¶9} Mr. Woods appeals, raising one assignment of error. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT JOEL WOODS’ 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING AN UNLAWFUL 

SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM AN 

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND 

ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. 

{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Woods argues that the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress. More particularly, he challenges the traffic stop, the search of his 

person, the search of the car, and his statement that the gun was his. 

{¶11} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and 

fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. The trial court, as the trier of 

fact, is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve factual issues. Id. An 

appellate court, therefore, “must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by 

competent, credible evidence.” Id. “Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must then 

independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts 

satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id. Consequently, “this Court reviews the trial court’s 

factual findings for competent, credible evidence and considers the court’s legal conclusions de 

novo.” State v. Hendrix, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26648, 26649, 2013-Ohio-2430, ¶ 6. 

{¶12} Initially, this Court notes that, as a passenger, Mr. Woods has standing to 

challenge the traffic stop. “Passengers in a vehicle have standing to challenge the legality of a 

stop because when the vehicle is stopped, their freedom of movement is affected; therefore, 

when the vehicle is stopped, the passengers are seized.” State v. Earley, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 

99CA0059, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2836, *8-9 (June 28, 2000). Mr. Woods argues that “[t]here 
4 

 

was no marked lanes violation” and it was unreasonable to stop the car for “the minor, isolated 

infraction of ‘hitting’ the yellow line.” 

{¶13} R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) prescribes: “Whenever any roadway has been divided into 

two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic * * * [a] vehicle * * * shall be driven, as nearly as is 

practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic * * *.” The Ohio Supreme Court has 

repeatedly found that “where 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 in question.” Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11-12 (1996); see also 

State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, ¶ 7-8. 

{¶14} Officer Koch was the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing. In 

addition, the dash camera video of the stop was entered into evidence. On the video, Officer 

Koch is heard saying, “They hit it.” On cross-examination, Officer Koch conceded that the 

violation may be hard to see on the video. At the hearing, when he was asked to describe the 

violation, Officer Koch testified that the “[c]ar’s left tires went on the double yellow line 

appearing to almost go over the double yellow line.” 

{¶15} The trial court found that “Officer[] Koch and [another officer1

] observed a 

vehicle make a marked lanes violation by driving on the yellow [ ] line for approximately five 

seconds.” While Officer Koch’s testimony supports the court’s finding of driving on the yellow 

line, he did not testify as to the length of time that the tires were on the yellow line. The video 

also does not show the car being driven on the yellow line for five seconds. Consequently, the 

 

1

 Though not directly relevant to the arguments on appeal, the record indicates that this officer 

did not arrive until after Officer Koch had stopped the car. 
5 

 

trial court’s finding in this regard is not supported by competent, credible evidence. See Hendrix, 

2013-Ohio-2430, at ¶ 14. 

{¶16} Moreover, this Court “cannot conclude that the factual inaccuracies had no impact 

on the court’s ultimate decision” as to whether Officer Koch had a reasonable suspicion that the 

driver committed a violation of R.C. 4511.33(A)(1). See id. When a trial court’s factual findings 

are not supported by competent, credible evidence, this Court is unable to address its application 

of the law to those facts. Id.; see also State v. Essad, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA010950, 

16CA010951, 2017-Ohio-2913, ¶ 20. On this basis, Mr. Woods’ assignment of error is sustained. 

The remaining issues under this assignment of error concern the application of the law and the 

events subsequent to the stop. Based on our determination regarding the court’s factual findings, 

these issues are not yet ripe for review. See Essad at ¶ 21. 

III. 

{¶17} Mr. Woods’ assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit 

County Common Pleas Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

Judgment reversed 

and cause remanded. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 
6 

 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellee. 

 

 LYNNE S. CALLAHAN 

 FOR THE COURT 

SCHAFER, P. J. 

CARR, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

SENECA KONTURAS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.