Court Opinion

ID: 9893258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 15:11:00.403489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:50.463250
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hall, 2023-Ohio-3869.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                             :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
LEVI PRESTON HALL,                           :       Case No. 2022 CA 0053
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Richland County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     2021 CR 0446 N

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    October 25, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE SCHUMACHER                                     RANDALL E. FRY
Prosecuting Attorney                                 90 Darby Drive
Richland County, Ohio                                Lexington, Ohio 44904

By: MARTIN I. NEWMAN
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                                    2

Baldwin, J.

          {¶1}   Appellant Levi Preston Hall appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to

suppress. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

          {¶2}   On February 21, 2021, the appellant’s mother went to the Mansfield Police

Department to request a well-being check on her son, the appellant. She spoke with Patrol

Officer     Joshua    Adamescu,     telling   him   that   the   appellant   had   been       using

methamphetamine for days, had been up for days, had knives with which he had been

chasing people around the house, and that she was very concerned for her safety, her

husband’s safety, and the appellant’s safety. She also told officers that the appellant said

he “wanted to go out like Kenneth Cherry,” who was killed when he charged police officers

while brandishing a knife.

          {¶3}   Officer Adamescu and Officer Moore proceeded to 399 Hammond Avenue,

in the City of Mansfield, where the appellant resided with his father. The appellant’s father,

the owner of said residence, met the officers outside and told them that the appellant was

inside, the appellant had been using methamphetamine, the appellant brought strange

people into the residence, the appellant had knives, slept with an ax at night and that he

was scared for his own safety in light of the appellant’s behavior. The appellant’s father

gave the officers permission to enter the residence.

          {¶4}   Officer Adamescu met the appellant at the threshold of the back door. The

appellant attempted to slam the door, but Officer Adamescu used his foot to prevent the

door from shutting completely, entered the home, and saw that the appellant held a

butcher knife. The appellant threw the knife into the sink and ran. Officer Adamescu
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                              3

advised the appellant to stop; the appellant failed to heed Officer Adamescu’s warning

and was thereafter tased, to no effect. The appellant shut himself in a bedroom and

barricaded the door with his body. Officer Moore, who was still outside the home, could

see the appellant through a window and saw that he was holding a knife. Officer

Adamescu kicked in the bedroom door, and the appellant fell backward, dropping the

knife.

         {¶5}   Officer Adamescu entered the bedroom, which was filled with knives, a long

sword, a machete, an ax, and other sharp objects. The appellant stood up, right over the

knife. Officer Adamescu ordered the appellant to the ground. The appellant started to go

down towards the ground, but then lunged towards a knife. However, Officer Adamescu

and Officer Moore, who had entered the room by that time, were able to apprehend the

appellant before he grabbed the knife.

         {¶6}   The appellant was arrested for obstruction and resisting. He was searched

incident to said arrest, at which time officers found a baggie in his sweatshirt pocket of

what was later confirmed to be methamphetamine.

         {¶7}   The appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated possession of drugs

in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. The appellant

was released on a personal recognizance bond. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest

after he failed to appear for his August 30, 2021 arraignment. The appellant was ultimately

arraigned on February 11, 2022, at which time he pleaded not guilty.

         {¶8}   On May 24, 2022, the appellant filed a motion for leave to file a motion to

suppress, which the trial court granted. A hearing on the appellant’s motion to suppress
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                               4

was conducted on June 23, 2022. Officer Adamescu testified, and a number of exhibits

were submitted by the appellee.

       {¶9}   On July 1, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying the

appellant’s motion to suppress. The trial court specifically found as follows: that the

appellant’s mother had requested a well-being check of the appellant because he had

been doing methamphetamines for some time, had not slept for days, and was chasing

people throughout the house with knives; that Officer Adamescu went to the residence,

and was met by the appellant’s father, who owned the home and gave officers permission

to enter the premises; that officers observed the appellant with a knife, at which time he

ran from them; that the appellant was thereafter arrested, whereupon a search of his

person revealed the drugs giving rise to the charge set forth in the indictment; and finally,

that Officer Adamescu, who was the only witness to testify during the hearing, was a

credible witness, that officers had probable cause to enter the residence, that the

appellant’s actions were more than sufficient to exceed probable cause for the arrest and

search, and that the search incident to the arrest was proper. Based upon these findings,

the trial court denied the appellant’s motion to suppress. The matter thereafter proceeded

to jury trial, at which the defendant was found guilty.

       {¶10} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and sets forth the following

sole assignment of error:

       {¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT’S MOTION

TO SUPPRESS.”
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                                 5

       {¶12} The appellant submits that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

suppress, arguing that the evidence found on the appellant’s person was not the result of

a lawful search. We disagree.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶13} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law

and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154–155, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d

71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of

fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness

credibility. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314, 652 N.E.2d 988 (1995); State v.

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accordingly, a reviewing court must

defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent, credible evidence exists to support

those findings. See Burnside, supra; Dunlap, supra; State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328,

332, 713 N.E.2d 1 (4th Dist.1998); State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 675 N.E.2d

1268 (4th Dist.1996). However, once this Court has accepted those facts as true, it must

independently determine as a matter of law whether the trial court met the applicable legal

standard. See Burnside, supra, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707

N.E.2d 539 (4th Dist.1997); See, generally, United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122

S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct.

1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). That is, the application of the law to the trial court's findings

of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review. Ornelas, supra. Moreover, due weight

should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law

enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698, 116 S.Ct. at 1663.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                                 6

                                         ANALYSIS

       {¶14} Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable without prior

approval by a judge or magistrate, subject to only a few specific exceptions. Arizona v.

Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), citing Katz v. United

States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). One such exception is

a search incident to a lawful arrest. The search incident to a lawful arrest exception has

two rationales: officer safety, and “safeguarding evidence that the arrestee might conceal

or destroy.” State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429, 2015-Ohio-3954, 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 182,

citing Gant at 338–339, 129 S.Ct. 1710.

       {¶15} Officer Adamescu testified at the motion to suppress hearing that the

appellant was arrested for obstruction and resisting. R.C. 2921.31 defines obstructing

official business, and states that no person, with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay

the performance by a public official of an authorized act within the public official’s official

capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes the performance of the official’s lawful

duties. Officers Adamescu and Moore were engaged in the official business of conducting

a wellness check within their official capacity as law enforcement officers. The appellant

ran from the officers, barricaded himself in a room with a variety of sharp objects that

could inflict harm, and started to lunge towards a knife when officers ordered him to the

ground. The evidence clearly demonstrates sufficient grounds to lawfully arrest the

appellant for obstruction.

       {¶16} Further, R.C. 2921.33 defines resisting arrest, and provides that no person,

recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person, and

provides further that no person shall resist or interfere with the lawful arrest of the person
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                                7

if the offender, during the course of the resistance or interference, brandishes a deadly

weapon. The evidence clearly demonstrates sufficient grounds to lawfully arrest the

appellant for resisting arrest - he brandished a knife, dropped it upon the Officer

Adamescu’s entry into the room, and then lunged towards a knife as he was ordered to

the ground during his arrest.

       {¶17} Officers searched the appellant’s person incident to his arrest. Their search

of the appellant was reasonable, particularly in light of concerns for the officers’ safety

given the plethora of sharp objects that were in the room in which the appellant had

barricaded himself just prior to his arrest.

       {¶18} We find that competent, credible evidence exists to support the findings of

the trial court. We find further that the trial court’s findings established that officers had

sufficient grounds to arrest the appellant and conduct a search incident to that arrest. The

facts in this case support the appellant’s arrest for obstruction and resisting, and the

officers’ search of the appellant incident to that arrest was reasonable.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0053                                         8

      {¶19} The appellant’s assignment of error is without merit and is therefore

overruled. The decision of the Richland Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.