Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio County of Summit State of Ohio v. Robert J. Feeney

October 26, 2011

STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE
v.
ROBERT J. FEENEY APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 10 01 0251

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carr, Judge.

Cite as State v. Feeney,

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Appellant, Robert Feeney, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} On January 4, 2010, Feeney appeared in the Stow Municipal Court and entered a plea of guilty to charges of disorderly conduct and using weapons while intoxicated. As part of the sentencing order, Feeney agreed to temporarily relinquish the firearms he had in his home. This case arises out of law enforcement's subsequent trip to Feeney's home to recover the firearms.

{¶3} On February 24, 2010, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted Feeney on one count of illegal manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a felony of the second degree; one count of illegally manufacturing or possessing explosives in violation of R.C. 2923.17(B), a felony of the second degree; one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1), a felony of the third degree; one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals or substances for the manufacture of prohibited weapons in violation of R.C. 2909.28(A), a felony of the fourth degree; one count of illegal cultivation of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a felony of the fifth degree; one count of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance in violation of R.C. 2923.17(A), a felony of the fifth degree; one count of possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(3), a felony of the fifth degree; two counts of possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24, felonies of the fifth degree; and one count of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. There was also a criminal forfeiture specification which pertained to the first eight counts of the indictment.

{¶4} On March 12, 2010, Feeney filed a motion to suppress. The trial court held a two-day hearing on the motion to suppress beginning on May 20, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court judge made several statements on the record prior to denying the motion. The trial court determined that the municipal court judge wanted "the police to check to make sure that there are no guns in [the home] where the parents can be in any kind of harm." The trial court stated the police were in compliance with the court order when they checked for guns in the bedroom and that the municipal court judge did not indicate that the order was limited to "the six guns that [were] in the locked box." The trial court subsequently stated, "It's hard for me to believe that the parents went up, whichever one, and retrieved this lockbox and didn't see other guns themselves in the house or didn't know that they were *** in his room[.]" The trial court subsequently issued a one-sentence journal entry denying the motion to suppress on June 2, 2010.

{¶5} On August 26, 2010, a supplemental indictment was filed which charged Feeney with five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree; four counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree; and six counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material or performance in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), felonies of the fifth degree.

{¶6} On October 14, 2010, Feeney appeared in the trial court and entered a plea of no contest to fourteen counts in the indictment. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years imprisonment. Feeney was also found to be a Tier II sexually-oriented offender. The trial court's sentencing entry was journalized on November 30, 2010.

{¶7} Feeney filed a notice of appeal on December 14, 2010. On appeal, Feeney raises one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE."

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Feeney argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. This Court disagrees.

{ΒΆ9} In support of his assignment of error, Feeney argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police did not obtain lawful consent to search his bedroom. Feeney asserts that his parents did not give the officers consent to search the home, but simply acquiesced to the officers' desire to do so because they thought they had no other choice. Feeney further argues that the search for firearms was a ruse which allowed the police to conduct a search for narcotics. The State argues that the record indicates that the police properly obtained consent from the Feeneys prior to searching the bedroom. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.