from the Franklin County C.P.C. No. 13CR-4970 Court of Common
O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for
C. Belli, for appellant.
1} Defendant-appellant, James F. Shaskus, appeals
from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to no contest
pleas to five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter
involving a minor. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
2} On September 18, 2013, Shaskus was indicted on
five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a
minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.322. On April 18, 2014,
Shaskus filed a motion to suppress: (1) e-mail messages from
the account of "firstname.lastname@example.org" (the
"Jack Flash account") obtained from Yahoo, Inc.
("Yahoo"), pursuant to a search warrant issued
October 21, 2011 (the "Yahoo warrant"), and (2)
digital images, data, and e-mails stored on the hard drive of
a computer seized from his residence, pursuant to a search
warrant issued November 14, 2011 (the "residence
warrant"). The trial court conducted a hearing on the
motion to suppress, and heard testimony from David R. Hunt,
formerly a detective with the Franklin County Sheriffs
Office, regarding the investigation that led to the search
warrants. The trial court also heard testimony from Shaskus.
Following the hearing, the trial court issued a decision
granting the motion to suppress the e-mail messages from the
Jack Flash account, finding the Yahoo warrant was overbroad.
3} Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, appealed to
this court; we held the Yahoo warrant was not impermissibly
overbroad and reversed the trial court's decision
granting the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from
the Jack Flash account. State v. Shaskus, 10th Dist.
No. 14AP-812, 2016-Ohio-7942, ¶ 56, 60. We expressly
noted the trial court had not reached the merits of
Shaskus's challenge to the residence warrant and
indicated the trial court should decide that issue in the
first instance on remand. Id. at ¶ 60, fn. 2.
4} On remand, the parties submitted memoranda
regarding suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to the
residence warrant and the trial court conducted a hearing
where counsel presented arguments, but no additional evidence
was taken. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the
motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the
residence warrant. Shaskus then entered no contest pleas to
all five charges in the indictment, and the trial court
imposed one year of community control.