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 v. Baldwin

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

June 20, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSHUA BALDWIN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. TRC118937A

For Plaintiff-Appellee R. KYLE WITT, TERRE L. VANDERVOORT

For Defendant-Appellant ANDREW T. SANDERSON

JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.

OPINION

Farmer, J.

{¶1} On September 5, 2011, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Chad McMunn observed appellant, Joshua Baldwin, operating a motor vehicle over the speed limit. After initiating a traffic stop, Trooper McMunn had appellant perform three field sobriety tests. Based upon the results, appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19 and speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21.

{¶2} On October 6, 2011, appellant filed a motion to suppress, seeking to suppress the results of the field sobriety tests and claiming an illegal arrest. A hearing was held on March 12, 2012. By entry filed March 23, 2012, the trial court suppressed the field sobriety tests, but found probable cause to arrest.

{¶3} On May 30, 2012, appellant pled no contest to the charges. By journal entry filed May 30, 2012, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to ninety days in jail, eighty-seven days suspended.

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

I

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE."

I

{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the issue of probable cause to arrest. We disagree.

{¶7} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (4th Dist. 1991); State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (4th Dist. 1993). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (4th Dist. 1993). Finally, assuming the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 ...


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.