[Cite as State v. Jessee, 2011-Ohio-5025.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24073 

vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 09CR3201/1 

MATTHEW JESSEE : (Criminal Appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 . . . . . . . . . 

 O P I N I O N

 Rendered on the 30th day of September, 2011. 

 . . . . . . . . . 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Pros. Attorney; Carley J. Ingram, Asst. Pros. 

Attorney, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee 

P.J. Conboy, II, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, 5613 Brandt Pike, Huber 

Heights, OH 45424 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} On September 28, 2009, at 6:44 p.m., Dayton police 

officer Dan Zwiesler observed a vehicle driven by Defendant Matthew 

Jessee make an abrupt right hand turn from Hoover Avenue onto 

Westwood Avenue. Defendant failed to signal his intention to turn 
2

prior to making the turn. Officer Zwiesler immediately initiated 

a traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle for failing to signal the 

turn. 

{¶ 2} When Officer Zwiesler approached the vehicle, Defendant 

was rolling down his window. The first thing Officer Zwiesler 

noticed was the overpowering smell of raw marijuana in the vehicle. 

 From his experience as a Dayton police officer, Zwiesler 

recognized the odor because he has smelled the odor of raw marijuana 

over one thousand times. 

{¶ 3} As a result of smelling the odor of raw marijuana coming 

from Defendant’s vehicle, Officer Zwiesler decided to search the 

vehicle’s passenger compartment. After Defendant and his three 

passengers were removed from the vehicle, Officer Zwiesler 

discovered a clear, gallon-size freezer bag half full of marijuana 

underneath the front edge of the driver’s seat. 

{¶ 4} Defendant was indicted on one count of possession of 

marijuana, between two hundred and one thousand grams, a fifth 

degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Defendant filed 

a motion to suppress evidence and his statements to police. The 

trial court overruled the motion following a hearing. Defendant 

entered a plea of no contest to the charge and was found guilty. 

 The trial court sentenced Defendant to five years of community 

control sanctions. 
3

{¶ 5} Defendant timely appealed to this court from his 

conviction and sentence. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an 

Anders brief, Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 19 L.Ed.2d 493, stating that he could find no meritorious 

issues for appellate review. We notified Defendant of his 

appellate counsel’s representations and afforded him ample time 

to file a pro se brief. None has been received. This case is 

now before us for our independent review of the record. Penson 

v. Ohio (1988), 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300. 

{¶ 6} Defendant’s appellate counsel has identified one 

possible issue for appeal: that the trial court erred in overruling 

 Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. 

{¶ 7} With respect to the stop and search of Defendant’s 

vehicle, Defendant’s failure to properly signal his turn, which 

Officer Zwiesler witnessed, constitutes a traffic violation and 

 provides sufficient probable cause for the stop. Dayton v. 

Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 1996-Ohio-431. The stop of Defendant’s 

vehicle was therefore lawful. 

{¶ 8} When Officer Zwiesler approached the driver’s window, 

which Defendant rolled down, he immediately recognized the 

overpowering odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle from 

his prior experience as a police officer. 

{¶ 9} In State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 2000-Ohio-10, the 
4

Ohio Supreme Court held: 

{¶ 10} “The smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified 

to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause 

to conduct a search.” Syllabus. 

{¶ 11} Defendant’s vehicle was properly searched pursuant to 

the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Id. 

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. 

{¶ 12} With respect to Defendant’s statements, both times that 

Defendant was questioned by police, once by Officer Zwiesler and 

once by Detective Baker, this record shows that Defendant was first 

read his Miranda rights, that he indicated each time that he 

understood his rights, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived 

his rights and agreed to speak with police, and that his statements 

were voluntary. Defendant’s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights were not violated. This assignment of error lacks arguable 

merit. 

{¶ 13} In addition to reviewing the possible issues for appeal 

raised by Defendant’s appellate counsel, we have conducted an 

independent review of the trial court’s proceedings and have found 

no error having arguable merit. Accordingly, Defendant’s appeal 

is without merit and the judgment of the trial court will be 

affirmed. 
5

DONOVAN, J., And HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Carley J. Ingram, Esq. 

P.J. Conboy, II, Esq. 

Matthew P. Jessee 

Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman