Court Opinion

ID: 9906365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 20:07:12.796734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:17.596231
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Crain, 2023-Ohio-4338.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                      JUDGES:
                                                   Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                         Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
                                                   Case No. 2023 CA 0011
BARBARA CRAIN

        Defendant-Appellant                        OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 0405

JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         November 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE SCHUMACHER                                BYRON CORLEY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                            3 North Main Street
38 South Park                                   Suite 602
Mansfield, Ohio 44902                           Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0011                                                 2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Barbara Crain appeals the judgment of the Richland County Court

of Common Pleas denying the Motion to Suppress evidence. Appellee is State of Ohio.

The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   In June of 2022, Appellant was indicted on one count of Aggravated

Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A) and R.C. §2925.11(C)(1)(a).

       {¶3}   On September 19, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress.

       {¶4}   On December 27, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s Motion

to Suppress. Ultimately, the trial court denied Appellant’s Motion to Suppress. Appellant

did not file a transcript of the suppression hearing.

       {¶5}   On January 6, 2023, Appellant entered a plea of no contest.

       {¶6}   On January 26, 2023, Appellant entered a Substance Abuse Treatment

Court Diversion Program.

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶7}   Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following

Assignment of Error:

       {¶8}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE

EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS

BASED ON A MISTAKE OF LAW.”
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0011                                                    3

                                                I.

        {¶9}   In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court

erred by failing to suppress evidence because the traffic stop was based on a mistake of

law. We disagree.

        {¶10} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14,

Article I, Ohio Constitution, prohibit the government from conducting unreasonable

searches and seizures of persons or their property. See Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S.

1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, 565 N.E.2d

1271.

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

fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶8. During

a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in

the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness credibility. State v.

Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148,154, 1996-Ohio-134, 661 N.E.2d 1030. A reviewing court is

bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent,

credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 145, 675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th

Dist.1996). Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must independently

determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court’s conclusions, whether

the trial court’s decision meets the applicable legal standard. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio

App.3d 37, 41, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993), overruled on other grounds, State v.

Gunther, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 04CA25, 2005-Ohio-3492, ¶16.

        {¶12} Three methods exist to challenge a trial court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court’s findings of fact. State v.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0011                                                       4

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). “A reviewing court is bound to

accept those findings of fact if supported by competent, credible evidence.” State v. Curry,

95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (8th Dist.1994). Second, an appellant may argue

the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In

that case, the appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law.

Williams at 41. Third, an appellant may argue the trial court incorrectly decided the

ultimate issue raised in the motion to suppress. When addressing the third type of

challenge, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial

court’s conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in the given

case. (Citation omitted). Curry at 96.

       {¶13} In the case sub judice, the record before us does not contain a transcript of

the proceedings below as required by App.R. 9.

       {¶14} A presumption of regularity attaches to all trial court proceedings. See, e.g.,

Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 744 N.E.2d 763. Furthermore, it is well

settled that when portions of the transcript necessary to resolve issues are not part of the

record on appeal, we must presume regularity in the trial court proceedings and affirm.

Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384.

       {¶15} Under the circumstances of the present case, absent a transcript or some

other means under the Appellate Rules to assist us in ascertaining the totality of the

evidence presented during the suppression hearing, Appellant has no grounds to

overcome the presumption of regularity regarding the denial of Appellant’s Motion to

Suppress. As Appellant has failed to provide a transcript, we must presume the trial court

duly acted therein.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0011                                         5

      {¶16} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

      {¶17} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,

Richland County, Ohio, is hereby, affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Hoffman, P. J., and

Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/br 1129