APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 11CR082876
STEPHEN P. HANUDEL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
(¶1} Defendant, William P. Burgin, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
(¶2} On May 10, 2012, Trooper Michael Trader of the Ohio State Highway Patrol initiated a traffic stop of a car that Mr. Burgin was driving. The stop ultimately led to the officer's search of Mr. Burgin's car and the discovery of marijuana, the prescription drug Adderall, drug paraphernalia, a scale, and a "FoodSaver" machine. As a result, the Lorain County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Burgin on two counts of possession of drugs in violation R.C. 2925.11(A) and on one count of each of the following: trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A), and possessing drug paraphernalia in violation of RC. 2925.14(C)(1).
(¶3} Mr. Burgin pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress the evidence, the discovery of which he argued, in part, resulted from an illegal search of his vehicle. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion. Thereafter, Mr. Burgin amended his plea to no contest, and the trial court found him guilty on all counts contained in the indictment. In a journal entry dated September 12, 2012, the trial court imposed sentence.
(¶4} Mr. Burgin timely filed a notice of appeal from the sentencing entry, and he now presents one assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED [MR.] BURGIN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
(¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Burgin argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree.
Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must then independently ...