Court Opinion

ID: 9382476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 19:06:16.017308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.686747
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Poudel, 2023-Ohio-995.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                      LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                  JUDGES:
                                                Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                     Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                Case No. 2022 CA 00071
 DEVI POUDEL

          Defendant-Appellant                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                      Appeal from the Licking County Court of
                                                Common Pleas, Case No. 21-CR-00565

 JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        March 24, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

 JENNY WELLS                                    STEPHEN T. WOLFE
 Licking County Prosecutor                      Wolfe Law Group, LLC
                                                1350 W. 5th Avenue – Suite #330
 ROBERT N. ABDALLA                              Columbus, Ohio 43212
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 20 S. Second Street
 Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                         2

Hoffman, P.J.
       {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Devi Poudel appeals the judgment entered by the

Licking County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest to

two   counts    of   aggravated     vehicular    assault     (R.C.   2903.08(A)(1)(a),   R.C.

2903.08(A)(2)(b)) and sentencing him to twenty-four months incarceration.            Plaintiff-

appellee is the state of Ohio.

                            STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}    On September 19, 2021, Trooper Zack Drake of the Ohio State Highway

Patrol was dispatched to the scene of an accident in Licking County involving an

automobile and a motorcycle. The Trooper was dispatched around 9:30 p.m., while the

accident occurred around 8:30 p.m.

       {¶3}    The trooper saw a motorcycle in the roadway, and a car off to the side.

Appellant, who is a native of Nepal, was in the driver’s seat of the car. The trooper had

experience with Nepali immigrants. Appellant told the trooper he had been in the United

States for eleven years, and was a citizen.

       {¶4}    Trooper Drake told Appellant he wanted to talk to him about the accident.

The trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Appellant, and his eyes were

bloodshot and glassy. Appellant stated he had two Corona beers to drink. Trooper Drake

asked Appellant to walk to the front of the cruiser, where the dash camera would capture

the encounter. The trooper conducted field sobriety tests on Appellant. Trooper Drake

detected six of six clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, five of eight clues on the

walk and turn test, and three of four clues on the one-leg stand test. Appellant did not

express difficulty understanding the officer, and responded appropriately to the

instructions for the tests and to the officer’s questions.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                        3

       {¶5}    After conducting field sobriety tests, Trooper Drake placed Appellant under

arrest, provided Appellant with Miranda warnings, and read Appellant the Bureau of Motor

Vehicles Form 2255 regarding test refusal. Appellant agreed to a breathalyzer test.

Trooper Drake transported Appellant to the Granville Highway Patrol post, where the

breath test was administered, and Appellant gave a statement.            The results of the

breathalyzer test were .184.

       {¶6}    Appellant was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury with two counts of

aggravated vehicular assault. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the field

sobriety tests and the breath test, arguing his consent to testing and waiver of his Miranda

rights was not voluntary given his limited understanding of English and lack of experience

with police.   Appellant also argued under the circumstances of this case, Miranda

warnings were required before any testing or questioning commenced.

       {¶7}    The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Trooper Drake testified,

and the video taken from his dash camera was admitted into evidence. Appellant testified

at the hearing, solely with the aid of an interpreter. He testified he had been in the United

States since 2012, and had been a citizen since 2018. He testified he held the same job

for eight years, and another job for two years prior to his current job. He testified at work,

he asks someone to help him when he doesn’t understand English, or would bring a friend

or interpreter to assist him. He testified he did not understand any of the proceedings

with Trooper Drake at the scene of the accident, and did not understand he was waiving

his rights. While he initially testified he did not remember speaking with Trooper Drake in

English, he later corrected himself and testified he did remember speaking with the

trooper in English.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                       4

       {¶8}    The trial court overruled the motion, finding Miranda warnings are not

required before administering field sobriety tests. The trial court further found Appellant’s

testimony he could not understand English and therefore did not understand what was

happening in the encounter with the trooper was not credible. The trial court overruled

the motion to suppress.

       {¶9}    Appellant entered a plea of no contest to both counts in the indictment and

was convicted. The trial court found the convictions merged, and the State elected to

have Appellant sentenced on Count One.          Appellant was sentenced to twenty-four

months incarceration.

       {¶10} It is from the August 15, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

               I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT

       APPELLANT’S TESTIMONY WAS NOT CREDIBLE.

               II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO EVALUATE

       WHETHER APPELLANT’S STATEMENTS WERE MADE KNOWINGLY,

       VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY.

               III. THE TRIAL COURT REACHED THE WRONG CONCLUSION

       BASED UPON ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO ITS FINDINGS OF

       FACT.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                        5

                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶11} Appellant’s assignments of error all claim error in the trial court’s judgment

overruling his motion to suppress. 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, 1995-Ohio-

243, 652 N.E.2d 988; 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.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                    6

                                               I.

      {¶12} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

finding his testimony at the suppression hearing was not credible.

      {¶13} The trial court made the following findings concerning Appellant’s credibility

in its judgment entry overruling the motion to suppress:

             The defendant’s testimony at the hearing was simply not credible.

      On the videotape, the defendant conversed with the Highway Patrol trooper

      at all times during the interaction with him, which was nearly 45 minutes.

      He had no problem conversing with the officer in English at any time. He

      tells him he has been in Ohio for eleven years. He is obviously able to

      understand the officer. He counted aloud to thirty on the one leg stand, in

      English. At no time in the entirety of the video does he ever say, “I don’t

      understand,” “I need help,” “Could you slow down” or “Explain that to me,”

      or anything of that nature at any time ever, and he certainly never says, “I

      don’t speak, understand, read or write English.” Although raised in the

      defendant’s motion, there simply are not other officers or patrol people

      present on the video. There are no other lights, no other emergency squad

      people, and no other law enforcement officers in the area.               The

      circumstances are simply not duress or an intensive law enforcement

      presence under any circumstances. When the officer asks the defendant if

      there is anything sharp in his pockets that might stick him or cause him

      injury like needles, the defendant tells the trooper that his phone and money
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                         7

       are in his pocket and that his wallet is still in the car. It defies credibility to

       argue that he could not understand when he responds to every question

       that was asked of him and never suggests that he did not understand.

       {¶14} Judgment Entry, April 19, 2022, pp. 3-4.

       {¶15} 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, 661 N.E.2d 1030 (1996). A reviewing

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

credible evidence. State v. Kopp, 5th Dist. No. 16-CA-96, 2017-Ohio-4428, 93 N.E.3d

199, ¶ 19.

       {¶16} We have reviewed the dash camera video admitted into evidence in this

case, and we find the trial court’s finding Appellant’s testimony was not credible is

supported by the evidence. Throughout the entire encounter, Appellant conversed with

the trooper in English.      While Appellant testified he simply followed the physical

demonstration of the field sobriety tests and did not follow the verbal instructions given in

English, he was able to count to thirty in English on the one-leg stand test, and further

was able to count nine steps on the walk and turn test according to the verbal instructions

given by the trooper, who had only demonstrated three steps. Appellant’s responses to

questions from the officer were appropriate. Nothing in the video suggests Appellant had

difficulty understanding or speaking English.

       {¶17} The first assignment of error is overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                      8

                                                II.

       {¶18} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

focusing on the fact Miranda warnings are not required before conducting field sobriety

tests, and failed to address whether Appellant’s statements were made knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently.

       {¶19} We note Appellant raised the issue of the requirement of Miranda warnings

before field sobriety tests are administered, arguing in his motion, “Although he was not

physically in the custody of the police, the investigative focus of the interaction and the

demonstrated probable cause required that the Defendant be advised of his rights under

Miranda before any questioning or testing commenced.”          Suppression motion, p. 8.

Therefore, the trial court appropriately addressed this argument, citing case law to support

the conclusion Miranda warnings are not required prior to the administration of field

sobriety tests.

       {¶20} Further, we find the trial court did address whether Appellant’s statements

were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently:

               In the case before the Court, the record firmly establishes that the

       defendant’s rights were adequately explained to him and that he understood

       his rights and that he voluntarily waived them. The record permits only one

       conclusion:    The defendant understood the Miranda advisement.          The

       record further firmly establishes that the defendant adequately understood

       every word of English that was spoken to him on September 19 th of 2021.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                                       9

       {¶21} Judgment Entry, April 19, 2022, p. 5.

       {¶22} The trial court further found, as quoted in our discussion of assignment of

error one, the record does not support Appellant’s claim of an intensive, intimidating police

presence. We find the trial court addressed adequately Appellant’s claim his statements

to police were not voluntary, intelligent or knowing.

       {¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶24} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court reached the

wrong conclusion concerning the voluntariness of his statements to police, and the court

improperly relied on cases in which an interpreter was provided to a non-English speaking

defendant.

       {¶25} Appellant’s argument relies for its validity on his claim he could not

adequately speak English and did not understand what was happening during the

encounter with police.     However, as discussed in our review of Appellant’s first

assignment of error, the trial court found his testimony to not be credible, and we find the

trial court’s conclusion Appellant was able to understand and speak English throughout

the encounter with Trooper Drake is supported by the 45-minute dash cam video in the

instant case. Because the record does not support Appellant’s claim his inability to speak

English rendered his statements to police involuntary, we find the trial court did not err in

concluding his waiver of his Miranda rights and consent to the breathalyzer test was

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071                                            10

      {¶26} The third assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶27} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Delaney, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur