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. Parsons

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Auglaize

August 5, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS M. PARSONS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

          Appeal from Auglaize County Municipal Court Trial Court No. 2018 TRC 05803

          Kenneth J. Rexford for Appellant

          Laia D. Zink for Appellee

          OPINION

          ZIMMERMAN, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas M. Parsons ("Parsons"), appeals the December 11, 2018 judgment entry of the Auglaize County Municipal Court convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs of abuse ("OVI") and a marked-lanes violation after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. We affirm.

         {¶2} On July 20, 2018, at approximately 11:54 p.m., Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Z. Deitering ("Trooper Deitering") initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle operated by Parsons after Trooper Deitering observed Parsons commit marked-lanes violations while travelling on State Route 198 in Auglaize County, Ohio. (Oct. 9, 2018 Tr. at 3). After determining that Parsons had a blood-alcohol concentration of .142 grams by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his breath, he was arrested and charged with OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d), first-degree misdemeanors, and the failure to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33, a minor misdemeanor. (Doc. No. 1).

         {¶3} On July 25, 2018, Parsons appeared and entered pleas of not guilty. (Doc. No. 10). On August 30, 2018, Parsons filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing that Trooper Deitering lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that he committed a marked-lanes violation. (Doc. No. 21). After a hearing on October 9, 2018, the State filed a memorandum in opposition to Parsons's motion to suppress evidence on October 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 34).[1] On October 17, 2018, Parsons filed a response to the State's memorandum in opposition to his motion to suppress. (Doc. No. 35). On December 11, 2018, the trial court denied Parsons's motion to suppress evidence after finding Trooper Deitering's testimony that he observed the vehicle operated by Parsons "drift over the white edge line on one occasion" to be credible. (Doc. No. 36).

         {¶4} On January 8, 2019, a change-of-plea hearing was held in the trial court. (Doc. No. 37). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Parsons withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered no-contest pleas to the OVI charge under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d) and the marked-lanes charge. (Id.). The trial court accepted Parsons's no-contest pleas, found him guilty, and dismissed the OVI charge under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). (Id.). The trial court sentenced Parsons to three years of community-control sanctions, including 180 days in jail, with 170 days suspended conditioned on his compliance with his community-control sanctions. (Id.). The trial court further imposed a $525 fine and a two-year license suspension. (Id.).

         {¶5} Parsons filed his notice of appeal on January 31, 2019 and raises one assignment of error for our review. (Doc. No. 50).

         Assignment of Error

         The Trial Court Erred by Denying Mr. Parsons' Motion to Suppress, In Violation of His Rights Under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

         {¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Parsons argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. In particular, he argues that the trial court erred by concluding that Trooper Deitering had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that he committed a marked-lanes violation.

         Standard of Review

         {¶7} A review of the denial of a motion to suppress involves mixed questions of law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. At a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Id. See also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 552 (1995). When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, "an appellate 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 (1982). With respect to the trial court's conclusions of law, however, our ...


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.