Court Opinion

ID: 9882489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:10:35.07905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:39.809783
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fowlkes, 2023-Ohio-3211.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              HANCOCK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 5-23-03

        v.

JAMAL R. FOWLKES,                                         OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                          Appeal from Findlay Municipal Court
                             Trial Court No. 21TRC03017

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                          Date of Decision: September 11, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Blaise Katter for Appellant

        Marshall Wm. Finelli for Appellee
Case No. 5-23-03

ZIMMERMAN, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jamal R. Fowlkes (“Fowlkes”), appeals the

Findlay Municipal Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

       {¶2} On May 15, 2021, Fowlkes was charged with one count of driving or

physical control while under the influence in violation of Findlay Municipal Code

333.01(a)(1)(A), a first-degree misdemeanor and a marked-lanes violation under

Findlay Municipal Code 331.08, a minor misdemeanor. On May 18, 2021, Fowlkes

filed written pleas of not guilty.

       {¶3} On October 12, 2021, Fowlkes filed a motion to suppress in the trial

court. On March 16, 2022, the trial court held a suppression hearing, and on August

17, 2022, the trial court denied Fowlkes’s motion to suppress. (Doc. No. 35).

       {¶4} On March 7, 2023, Fowlkes pleaded no contest to the driving-or-

physical-control-while-under-the-influence charge and the marked-lanes violation.

Thereafter, he was sentenced, but the trial court stayed his sentence pending appeal.

       {¶5} Fowlkes filed a timely notice of appeal, and raises a single assignment

of error for our review.

                                Assignment of Error

       The Trial Court Erred by Overruling the Motion to Suppress as
       to the Lawfulness of the Traffic Stop.

       {¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Fowlkes argues that the trial court erred

by denying his suppression motion. Specifically, Fowlkes asserts that the trial

                                         -2-
Case No. 5-23-03

court’s factual finding that Officer Alex Michael Traxler (“Ofcr. Traxler”) observed

him leave his lane of travel is not supported by competent, credible evidence, and

thus, implies that Ofcr. Traxler lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop

Fowlkes for the marked-lanes violation.

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶7} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of

law and fact. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the

role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions

and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152,

2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. “Consequently, an appellate court 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.

                                       Analysis

       {¶8} The record reveals that Ofcr. Traxler first observed Fowlkes traveling

northbound on North Main Street in Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio. Ofcr. Traxler

testified that North Main Street (in Findlay) is a four-lane roadway. Ofcr. Traxler

testified that Fowlkes left his marked lanes several times, which prompted him to

                                          -3-
Case No. 5-23-03

initiate a traffic stop. As a result, Fowlkes was cited under Findlay Municipal Code

331.08(a)(1), which provides in its pertinent parts:

       (a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more
       clearly marked lanes for traffic or wherever traffic is lawfully moving
       in two or more substantially continuous lines in the same direction,
       the following rules apply:

       (1) A vehicle shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely
       within a single lane or line of traffic and shall not be moved from such
       lane or line until the driver has first ascertained that such movement
       can be made with safety.

       {¶9} At the suppression hearing, Ofcr. Traxler testified that Fowlkes crossed

the centerline into oncoming traffic. However, under cross-examination, Ofcr.

Traxler admitted that he was mistaken as to in which lane that Fowlkes was

traveling. Thereafter, Ofcr. Traxler testified that “it was the right lane into the left

lane”, and not the left lane (crossing the centerline) into oncoming traffic that

Fowlkes crossed. (Mar. 16, 2022 Tr. at 65).

       {¶10} The trial court ultimately determined, regardless of which traffic-lane

line Fowlkes crossed (i.e., whether it was the center-double-yellow line or the line

dividing the right lane from the left), he crossed a marked lane at least twice. Thus,

to the extent he argues that the trial court’s finding is not supported by competent,

credible evidence, his argument lacks merit.

       {¶11} Nevertheless, Fowlkes argues that since Ofcr. Traxler was mistaken as

to the lane Fowlkes was traveling his testimony lacks credibility. Importantly, at a

                                          -4-
Case No. 5-23-03

suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the roles as the trier of fact, and we

defer to the trial court matters involving the credibility of witnesses. See State v.

Ferguson, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 04-01-34, 2002-Ohio-1763, *2. See also Burnside,

100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, at ¶ 8; State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19

(1982).   Here, we conclude that the trial court’s findings are supported by

competent, credible evidence. Hence, after our review of the entire record, we will

not say that the trial court erred by denying Fowlkes’s motion to suppress.

       {¶12} Accordingly, Fowlkes’s assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶13} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

WALDICK and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -5-