FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2015 TRC 08297
M. LYNCH, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
L. MORGAN, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Appellant, Mark Hamrick, appeals from his conviction in the
Elyria Municipal Court. For the reasons set forth below, this
Mr. Hamrick was indicted for operating a vehicle under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs ("OVI") and a
marked lane violation. He filed a motion to suppress the
results of the BAC DataMaster blood alcohol reading. A
hearing was held and the motion to suppress was denied.
Mr. Hamrick timely appeals his conviction and raises one
assignment of error.
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING [MR.
HAMRICK'S] MOTION TO SUPPRESS BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST
RESULTS WHERE [MR. HAMRICK'S] CONSENT WAS BASED ON FALSE
INFORMATION GIVEN [TO MR. HAMRICK] TO INDUCE CONSENT.
Mr. Hamrick argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. This Court disagrees.
A motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of
law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152,
2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. A reviewing court "must accept
the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported
by competent, credible evidence." Burnside at
¶ 8, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19,
20 (1982). "Accepting these facts as true, the appellate
court must then independently determine, without deference to
the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy
the applicable legal standard." Burnside at
¶ 8, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d
706, 710 (4th Dist.1997). Therefore, this Court grants
deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but
conducts a de novo review of whether the trial court applied
the appropriate legal standard to those facts. State v.
Booth, 151 Ohio App.3d 635, 2003-Ohio-829, ¶ 12
Mr. Hamrick contends his consent to take the breathalyzer
test was involuntary because it was induced by Officer
Sabo's misleading summation of the penalties under R.C.
4511.191, the administrative license suspension statute
("ALS"). The State responds that consent to take a
breathalyzer test is satisfied by an officer reading the BMV
Form 2255 to the arrestee. Mr. Hamrick only challenges the
trial court's application of the law to the facts.
Based on Ohio's implied consent statute, "an OVI
suspect is already deemed to have consented to the breath
test." Middleburg Hts. v. Henniger, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 86882, 2006-Ohio-3715, ¶ 19.
Accord R.C. 4511.191(A)(2). However, prior to
requesting a person under arrest for OVI to submit to a
chemical test, such as a breathalyzer, the arresting officer
must read BMV Form 2255 to the person. See R.C.
4511.192(B). BMV Form 2255 contains the statutory
requirements prescribed in R.C. 4511.192(B). State v.