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. Hamrick

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

June 12, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
MARK HAMRICK Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2015 TRC 08297

          DAVID M. LYNCH, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          TONY L. MORGAN, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN

         ¶1} Appellant, Mark Hamrick, appeals from his conviction in the Elyria Municipal Court. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} Mr. Hamrick timely appeals his conviction and raises one assignment of error.

         II.

         THE 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.

         {¶4} Mr. Hamrick argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. This Court disagrees.

         {¶5} 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 (9th Dist).

         {¶6} 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.

         {¶7} 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. ...


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.