FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2014 09 2742
GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.
Appellant, Nigel Purefoy, appeals from his convictions in the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
This Court previously summarized the procedural history of
this case as follows:
On September 23, 2014, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted
Purefoy on two counts of aggravated burglary and three counts
of aggravated robbery. All five counts in the indictment were
accompanied by a firearm specification, and the final count
of aggravated robbery also contained a criminal forfeiture
specification. Purefoy pleaded not guilty to the charges at
Purefoy subsequently pleaded guilty to three counts of
aggravated robbery. Shortly thereafter, however, Purefoy
filed a handwritten motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The
trial court granted Purefoy's motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas and appointed new counsel.
On April 20, 2015, Purefoy filed numerous motions, including
a motion to suppress statements he made to police during an
interview at the Barberton Police Department. After holding a
hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court issued a
journal entry denying the motion on June 29, 2015.
Prior to trial, Purefoy filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment on speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied
the motion. The matter proceeded to a jury trial and Purefoy
was convicted of all of the counts in the indictment, as well
as the attendant specifications. The trial court sentenced
Purefoy to a total of 18 years imprisonment.
State v. Purefoy, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27992,
2017-Ohio-79, ¶ 2-5.
Mr. Purefoy appealed his convictions and this Court affirmed
in part, concluding that the trial court did not violate Mr.
Purefoy's constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Id. at ¶ 7. We also reversed in part and
remanded the matter back to the trial court "to make
factual findings and then address the motion to suppress in
the first instance[, ]" but we took no position on the
legal arguments Mr. Purefoy raised in challenging the denial
of his motion to suppress. Id. at ¶ 18. We
declined to address Mr. Purefoy's manifest weight of the
evidence argument as premature. Id. at ¶ 20. On
remand, the trial court made the requisite findings in an
order and denied Mr. Purefoy's motion to suppress.
Mr. Purefoy now appeals from his convictions and raises two
assignments of error for this Court's review.
OF ERROR ONE
TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT ALLOWED THE
INTRODUCTION OF COERCED STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF MR.
PUREFOY'S  RIGHTS UNDER THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 10 & 16 OF THE
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Purefoy essentially
argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the
confession he made to police because it was coerced and
involuntary. We disagree.
A motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and
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 determine, without ...