Court Opinion

ID: 9882602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:17:16.745583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:31.071808
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Syvilaylack, 2023-Ohio-3033.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :   JUDGES:
                                                  :   Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                      :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                  :   Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                              :
                                                  :
THOUY SYVILAYLACK,                                :   Case No. 2022 CA 00043
                                                  :
        Defendant - Appellant                     :   OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Fairfield County
                                                      Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                      2021-CR-00348

JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                     August 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                For Defendant-Appellant

R. KYLE WITT                                          SCOTT P. WOOD
Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney                 Conrad/Wood
                                                      120 E. Main Street, Suite 200
By: BRIAN T. WALTZ                                    Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
239 West Main Street, Suite 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                               2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Thouy Syvilaylack appeals the decision of the trial court denying

his motion to suppress. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   In October of 2020, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office Special

Investigations Unit received an anonymous tip that an individual, “C.L.”, was in

possession of marijuana plants. Detective James Jodrey investigated further, and located

C.L.’s Facebook profile. Detective Jodrey communicated with C.L. through Facebook,

and purchased marijuana from C.L. on at least two occasions.

       {¶3}   On September 2, 2021, C.L. offered to sell Detective Jodrey one pound of

marijuana and two ounces of cocaine for $5,400.00. Special Investigations Unit detectives

had established surveillance of C.L.’s house, and just after C.L. offered to sell Jodrey the

aforementioned drugs, they observed a male meet briefly with C.L. outside his residence,

enter C.L.’s residence, and then exit approximately one minute later. Detectives then

observed the male enter the residence next door to C.L., and observed C.L. enter a car.

Approximately one minute later, Detective Jodrey received a text from C.L. stating that

he “was leaving now” in order to meet with Jodrey to complete the drug sale. C.L. was

taken into custody at the meeting location, at which time he was in possession of three

ounces of cocaine, approximately one and one-half pounds of marijuana, some THC

edibles, and a firearm.

       {¶4}   C.L. told detectives that his neighbor “Tony”, later identified as the appellant,

was the source of the marijuana and cocaine he was selling, and that the appellant

belonged to an organized crime network that also trafficked in firearms, which C.L. had
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                              3

personally observed. Detectives investigated further and located a photograph of the

appellant, whom C.L. identified as his drug supplier. Based upon this information,

Detective Jodrey applied for a search warrant for the appellant’s residence. The search

warrant was based upon a detailed affidavit executed by Detective Jodrey that outlined

the basis for the requested search warrant, including the information provided by C.L. and

the detectives’ subsequent investigation substantiating the same. The trial court issued

the search warrant, which was executed the same day. Evidence was seized, providing

the basis for criminal charges against the appellant.

       {¶5}   On September 9, 2021, the appellant was indicted on the following: count

one, possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11, with firearm, major drug offender,

and forfeiture specifications, a felony of the first degree; count two, aggravated

possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11, with firearm and forfeiture specifications,

a felony of the second degree; count three, having weapons while under disability in

violation of R.C. 2923.13, with a forfeiture specification, a felony of the third degree; and,

resisting arrest in violation of 2921.33, a misdemeanor of the second degree. 1 On

September 21, 2021, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.

       {¶6}   On August 11, 2022, the appellant filed a motion to suppress any and all

evidence obtained by law enforcement, arguing that the affidavit upon which the warrant

was based lacked sufficient probable cause, and therefore the seizure of property violated

the appellant’s constitutional rights. On August 29, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on

the motion to suppress. No testimony was offered, and the parties agreed that the search

1
  A superseding indictment was filed on October 13, 2022, which was subsequent to the
trial court’s ruling on the suppression issue and has no bearing on our analysis herein.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                             4

warrant and accompanying affidavit would be submitted under seal for the trial court’s

review.

       {¶7}   On September 28, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying the

appellant’s motion to suppress. The trial court specifically found that the warrant clearly

set forth that an informant identified the appellant, who lived next door to the informant,

as the source of the marijuana and cocaine he attempted to sell to Detective Jodrey, and

that detectives corroborated the information provided by the informant. The trial court held

that “taking into account all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit provided by

Detective Jodrey, the Court finds there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of

the warrant.” The trial court found further that “Detective Jodrey acted in good faith in

obtaining and executing the search warrant.” Finally, the trial court found that the search

warrant was not overbroad, and that “the affidavit set forth evidence of drug trafficking

which would support a warrant for the items listed in the affidavit as likely to be found in

the possession of someone possessing and/or trafficking in drugs.”          The trial court

examined the four-corners of the affidavit, determined that it supported the issuance of

the search warrant, and denied the appellant’s motion to suppress.

       {¶8}   The appellant subsequently pleaded no contest, and was given a

mandatory sentence of 12 to 17 ½ years in prison.

       {¶9}   The appellant filed a timely appeal in which he sets forth the following sole

assignment of error:

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

SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO A SEARCH

WARRANT.”
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                               5

       {¶11} The appellant argues that the affidavit submitted in support of the search

warrant was not supported by sufficient evidence and failed to establish a nexus that any

evidence of the drug transaction would be located at the appellant’s residence. We

disagree.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶12} 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.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                                    6

                                          ANALYSIS

        {¶13} The issue of whether an affidavit submitted with a request for a search

warrant contained sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable case was

addressed by this Court in State v. Harmon, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1997 CA 00337, 1998 WL

518520 (Apr. 13, 1998), in which the Court stated:

               To withstand constitutional scrutiny, a search warrant may only be

        issued upon a showing of probable cause. The standard for determining

        whether probable cause to believe evidence exists in a particular location is

        “whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit * * * there is a

        fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found in a particular

        place.” Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76

        L.Ed.2d 527. Our duty is “simply to ensure that the magistrate had a

        substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. In conducting

        any after-the-fact scrutiny of an affidavit submitted in support of a search

        warrant, trial courts should accord great deference to the magistrate's

        determination * * *.” State v. George (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d

        640, paragraph two of the syllabus.

Id. at 1.

        {¶14} More recently, this Court addressed the sufficiency of probable cause in an

affidavit submitted in support of a request for a search warrant in State v. Marion, 5th Dist.

Coshocton No. 2022 CA 0002, 2022-Ohio-2480, in which the Court held:

               In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit

        submitted for a search warrant, a trial judge or magistrate must make a
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                               7

      practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set

      forth in the affidavit, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of

      persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that

      contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. State

      v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989), at paragraph one of

      the syllabus (1980), citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–239, 103

      S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). As a reviewing court, we must accord

      great deference to the issuing judge's determination of probable cause. See

      George, at paragraph two of the syllabus. Doubtful or marginal cases should

      be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant. Id. The totality of the

      circumstances must be examined in determining whether probable cause

      existed for a search warrant. Illinois v. Gates, supra. “Probable cause”

      means only the probability and not a prima facie showing of criminal activity.

      George, supra, at 644. See, also, Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223,

      13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964).

                                         *      *      *

             When oral testimony is not offered in support of a search-warrant

      affidavit, the magistrate determines the sufficiency by “evaluating only [the

      facts alleged within] the four corners of the affidavit and [applying] an

      objective reasonableness standard.” United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d

      527, 559 (6th Cir. 2011), fn. 11 (Moore, J., concurring in judgment only),

      citing United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1378 (6th Cir. 1996). On

      appeal, “ ‘the reviewing court is concerned exclusively with the statements
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                               8

       contained within the affidavit itself.’ ” Id., quoting Weaver at 1378. Courts

       have held that affiants may make reasonable inferences within search-

       warrant affidavits.

Id. at ¶¶35, 38.

       {¶15} In the case sub judice, Detective Jodrey’s affidavit attested to the fact that

he had arranged to purchase a pound of marijuana and two ounces of cocaine from C.L.;

that while surveilling C.L. detectives observed the appellant interact with C.L., go into

C.L.’s home for approximately one minute, exit C.L.’s home, and enter the home next

door, which law enforcement sought to search; and, that approximately one minute

thereafter C.L. texted Jodrey to finalize the sale of the aforementioned drugs.

Furthermore, the affidavit attested to the fact that upon his arrest, C.L. provided detectives

with substantial information regarding the drug trafficking activities of his next-door

neighbor, the appellant. Detectives corroborated this information, and thereafter sought

the subject search warrant. The crimes for which the search warrant was sought were

trafficking in drugs and possession of drugs.

       {¶16} Based upon the information provided within the four corners of Detective

Jodrey’s affidavit, we find a substantial basis exists to support the finding of probable

cause to issue the warrant in this case, and as such the appellant’s sole assignment of

error is without merit.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2022 CA 00043                                        9

                                CONCLUSION

      {¶17} The appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of

the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Wise, John, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.