State v. Guinto , 2013 Ohio 2180 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Guinto, 2013-Ohio-2180.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case Nos. 12-COA-031
ANTHONY GUINTO : 12-COA-032
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Ashland Municipal
Court, Case No. 12-TRD-2975 and 12-
CRB-480
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 28, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RICHARD P. WOLFE II. DANIEL PRICE
Assistant Law Director 1210 East Main Street
W, DAVID MONTAGUE Ashland, OH 44805
DAVID HUNTER
Assistant Law Directors
1213 East Main Street
Ashland, OH 44805
[Cite as State v. Guinto, 2013-Ohio-2180.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony Guinto appeals the July 9, 2012 Judgment
of the Ashland County Municipal Court overruling his motion to dismiss and his motion
to suppress evidence. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On April 23, 2012, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Morrison
was on Interstate 71, near milepost 183 when he checked the speed of a vehicle at 81
miles per hour. The trooper executed a traffic stop of the offending vehicle at
approximately 15:08. Antony Guinto drove the vehicle.1
{¶3} Upon approaching the passenger's side of the vehicle, Trooper Morrison
noticed that both occupants had freshly lit cigarettes. He also observed several air
fresheners in the vents and on the dashboard. Trooper Morrison further testified that the
driver was "real shaky" with his driver's license. Trooper Morrison obtained consent to
pat down both Sweeting and Guinto. He then placed them in his cruiser. At that time,
Trooper Morrison requested a drug detection canine unit be dispatched to the location
of the traffic stop. Approximately 20 minutes later Trooper Norman arrived on the scene
with his drug detection dog.
{¶4} Trooper Norman walked his drug dog around the vehicle. The canine gave
a positive indication to the car at 15:38. A search of the vehicle resulted in two glass
pipes, one blue and clear, and the other one blue. Both pipes had suspected marijuana
residue in them. The pipes were in the center console of the car. Sweeting admitted
ownership of the blue pipe.
1
The passenger, William Sweeting, has filed a separate appeal in Fifth Dist. Case Nos. 12-COA-
030.
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 3
{¶5} Guinto was charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in violation of
R.C. 2925.14(C)(1)2, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree and speeding in violation of
R.C. 4511.21(D)(2)3, a minor misdemeanor. He was summonsed to appear in court on
May 4, 2012.
{¶6} On May 1, 2012, the trial court filed an entry titled “Motion for
Continuance.” The entry states,
On April 30, 2012, at 2:17 p.m. Defendant’s attorney called and
requested a Motion for Continuance in the case for the following reason:
Defendant lives in New York and his attorney is going to try to get
him an attorney in Ohio.
{¶7} The Deputy Clerk of Court signed the entry. The entry further contained
the following beneath the area where the deputy clerk had signed,
JUDGMENT ORDER
Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED, The above-styled case is
rescheduled for 05-11-12 at 09:00 AM. Speedy trial is extended
accordingly.
{¶8} The trial judge signed the entry. Guinto was advised of the new court date.
{¶9} On May 4, 2012, Guinto’s attorney filed a Notice of Appearance, a
Request for Discovery and a request for Arraignment in Abstentia. The trial court
granted the request for arraignment in abstentia by Judgment Entry filed May 7, 2012.
2
12-COA-31
3
12-COA-32
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 4
{¶10} At the arraignment on May 11, 2012, Guinto acknowledged that he had
receive partial discovery from the state on May 10, 2012, Further, a pre-trial conference
was scheduled in his case for May 29, 2012.
{¶11} At the May 29, 2012 pre-trial, Guinto informed the court that he had not
received the laboratory reports or the videotape of the traffic stop as requested in
discovery. The trial court informed the state to comply and scheduled another pre-trial
conference for June 15, 2012. At that conference, which included his co-defendant
Sweeting’s case, a June 29, 2012 trial date was set. During that hearing, Guinto’s
attorney4 informed the court that he planned to file a motion to suppress and would
request a hearing on such a motion.
{¶12} On June 26, 2012, Guinto filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that he
was not brought to trial within 45 days as required by R.C. 2945.71(B)(1). Also on that
date, Guinto filed a motion to suppress evidence.
{¶13} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress
on June 29, 2012. At that hearing, Guinto waived his speedy trial rights to allow the
court to issue a written decision. The trial court by written decisions filed July 9, 2012
overruled Guinto’s motion to dismiss and motion to suppress.
{¶14} At the trial date of July 11, 2012, Guinto changed his pleas to no contest
and was found guilty by the court of one count of possession of drug paraphernalia and
speeding. The trial court sentenced Guinto on the possession of drug paraphernalia
count to 25 days in jail, a fine of $250.00 plus court costs, and suspended his operator’s
license for six months. On the charge of speeding, the trial court imposed a fine of
$70.00, plus court costs.
4
The same attorney represented Guinto and Sweeting.
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 5
Assignments of Error
{¶15} In his two appeals, Guinto raises a combined three assignments of error,
{¶16} “I. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION WHEN THE
DEFENDANT MOVED FOR DISCHARGE ON THE BASIS THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN
BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS SET FORTH IN R.C. 2945.71, THE
BURDEN OF PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE SHIFTED TO THE STATE AND THE
STATE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL, SO DISCHARGE
WAS REQUIRED.
{¶17} “II. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
GUILTY BECAUSE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR VIOLATIONS OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER R.C. 2945.71
AND IMPROPERLY TOLLED TIME AGAINST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.
{¶18} “III. DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
GUILTY BECAUSE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANTS MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECOGNIZE AND RULE PROPERLY
ON THE ILLEGAL DETENTION AND ARREST OF APPELLANTS AND THE TRIAL
COURT DID NOT RECOGNIZE, APPLY AND RULE PROPERLY ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, STATUTES, CASE LAW AND SPECIFIC FACTS OF THIS
CASE CONCERNING THE LIMITED SCOPE AND DURATION OF THE STOP?”
I, II
{¶19} Guinto’s first and second assignments of error raise common and
interrelated issues; therefore, we will address the arguments together. Both
assignments contend that Guinto was denied his right to a speedy trial.
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 6
{¶20} R.C. 2945.71(D) provides,
(D) A person against whom one or more charges of different
degrees, whether felonies, misdemeanors, or combinations of felonies and
misdemeanors, all of which arose out of the same act or transaction, are
pending shall be brought to trial on all of the charges within the time period
required for the highest degree of offense charged, as determined under
divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section.
{¶21} A person charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor shall be brought to
trial within forty-five days after the person's arrest or the service of summons.” R.C.
2945.71(B)(1). “Upon motion made at or prior to the commencement of trial, a person
charged with an offense shall be discharged if he is not brought to trial within the time
required by sections 2945.71 and 2945.72 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2945.73(B).
“[S]uch discharge is a bar to any further criminal proceedings against him based on the
same conduct.” R.C. 2945.73(D).
{¶22} R.C. 2945.72 provides for a tolling of the time limitations under certain
circumstances,
The time within which an accused must be brought to trial, or, in the
case of felony, to preliminary hearing and trial, may be extended only by
the following:
(A) Any period during which the accused is unavailable for hearing
or trial, by reason of other criminal proceedings against him, within or
outside the state, by reason of his confinement in another state, or by
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 7
reason of the pendency of extradition proceedings, provided that the
prosecution exercises reasonable diligence to secure his availability;
(B) Any period during which the accused is mentally incompetent to
stand trial or during which his mental competence to stand trial is being
determined, or any period during which the accused is physically
incapable of standing trial;
(C) Any period of delay necessitated by the accused's lack of
counsel, provided that such delay is not occasioned by any lack of
diligence in providing counsel to an indigent accused upon his request as
required by law;
(D) Any period of delay occasioned by the neglect or improper act
of the accused;
(E) Any period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or
abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the
accused;
(F) Any period of delay necessitated by a removal or change of
venue pursuant to law;
(G) Any period during which trial is stayed pursuant to an express
statutory requirement, or pursuant to an order of another court competent
to issue such order;
(H) The period of any continuance granted on the accused's own
motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than
upon the accused's own motion;
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 8
(I) Any period during which an appeal filed pursuant to section
2945.67 of the Revised Code is pending.
{¶23} A speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v.
Larkin, 5th Dist. No. 2004-CA-103, 2005-Ohio-3122. As an appellate court, we must
accept as true any facts found by the trial court and supported by competent, credible
evidence. With regard to the legal issues, however, we apply a de novo standard of
review and thus freely review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. Id.When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial claim, we must strictly
construe the relevant statutes against the state.
{¶24} In the case at bar, the citation served upon Guinto on April 23, 2012
ordered him to appear in the Ashland Municipal Court on May 4, 2012. At the behest of
Guinto’s attorney, that arraignment was continued to May 11, 2012.
{¶25} On May 4, 2012, Guinto filed a request for discovery. The time during
which a discovery motion filed by a defendant is pending tolls the speedy trial clock.
State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159, syllabus. Guinto
agreed that the state partially responded to his discovery request on May 10 and May
29, 2012. (See, Motion to Dismiss Due process Violation filed June 26, 2012). In State
v. McDaniel, the court noted,
[I]f the defendant's motion to compel discovery is necessitated by
prosecutorial misconduct in refusing to comply with a discovery request,
then any delay caused by the motion is not chargeable to the defense and
does not toll the statutory speedy trial time. State v. Timson (May 25,
1989), Franklin App. No. 87AP-1212, unreported; State v. Collins (Sept.
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 9
30, 1988), Butler App. No. 88-02-021, unreported; State v. Cox (April 1,
1987), Holmes App. No. CA-367, unreported.
2nd Dist. No. 93-CA-38, 1994 WL 371229, at note 5 (July 13, 1994). Accord, State v.
Knight, 2nd Dist. No. 03-CA-014, 2005 WL 1490364(June 24, 2005), ¶19. In the case at
bar, the state initially complied with Guinto’s discovery request before the May 11, 2012
arraignment. However, at the May 29, 2012 pre-trial conference the state had still not
completed its responses to discovery. Because time had not been waived, it was
imperative for the state to expedite its responses. In the case at bar, it would work an
injustice to Guinto to charge time subsequent to the May 29, 2012 pre-trial conference
against him when the state failed to insure that he timely received the discovery. Thus,
under the facts of this case, the speedy trial clock begins to run again on May 29, 2012.
{¶26} On June 26, 2012, Guinto filed motions to dismiss and to suppress.
Accordingly, for speedy trial purpose the time is as follows,
April 24, 2012 to May 4, 2012(date of original arraignment)5 11 days
May 4, 2012 to May 11, 2012(continued at Guinto’s request) tolled
May 11, 2012 to May 29, 2012(state’s partial responses to discovery) tolled
May 29, 2012 to June 26, 2012(Guinto’s filing of motions) 29 days
Total days counted toward speedy trial 40 days
{¶27} In State v. Bickerstaff, 10 Ohio St.3d 62, 461 N.E.2d 892(1984) the Ohio
Supreme Court noted with respect to R.C.2945.72(E), "[i]t is evident from a reading of
the statute that a motion to dismiss acts to toll the time in which a defendant must be
5
The day of arrest is not included when computing the time within which a defendant must be
brought to trial under R.C. 2945.71. State v. Steiner, 71 Ohio App.3d 249, 593 N.E.2d 368(9th Dist. 1991)
(citing R.C. 1.14 and Crim.R. 45).
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 10
brought to trial." Id. at 67, 461 N.E.2d 892. In Bickerstaff, supra, the Court found no
prejudice from a five-month delay between the filing of the Motion to Dismiss and the
trial court's ruling upon the motion. Id.
{¶28} In the case at bar, the trial court overruled Guinto’s motion to dismiss and
motion to suppress by entries filed July 9, 2012. Accordingly, the time between June 26,
2012 and the trial court's ruling on the Motions on July 9, 2012 is not included for
speedy trial purposes. Guinto entered his plea on July 11, 2012. Thus, at the time of his
plea, only 42 of the 45 days had elapsed for speedy trial purposes.
{¶29} The trial court correctly ruled that Guinto's right to a speedy trial was not
abridged. Accordingly, Guinto's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶30} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law
and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154-155, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d
71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of
fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness
credibility. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308,314, 1995-Ohio-243, 652 N.E.2d
988; State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accordingly, a
reviewing court must defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent, credible
evidence exists to support those findings. See Burnside, supra; Dunlap, supra; State v.
Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332, 713 N.E.2d 1(4th Dist. 1998); State v. Medcalf, 111
Ohio App.3d 142, 675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist.1996). However, once this Court has
accepted those facts as true, it must independently determine as a matter of law
whether the trial court met the applicable legal standard. See Burnside, supra, citing
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 11
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539(4th Dist 1997); See,
generally, United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740(2002);
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911(1996). That
is, the application of the law to the trial court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo
standard of review Ornelas, supra. Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences
drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas,
supra at 698, 116 S.Ct. at 1663.
{¶31} In his third assignment of error, Guinto argues the trial court erred by
overruling his motion to suppress. The parties agree that the vehicle was lawfully
stopped. The question in the case at bar is whether the lawful detention for the traffic
infraction became an unlawful detention when the officer decided to call for the use of a
narcotics-detection dog to sniff around exterior of the vehicle Guinto was driving.
{¶32} The use of a drug detection dog does not constitute a "search" and an
officer is not required, prior to a dog sniff, to establish either probable cause or a
reasonable suspicion that drugs are concealed in a vehicle. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543
U.S. 405, 409, 125 S.Ct. 834, 838, 160 L.Ed.2d 842(2005); United States v. Place, 462
U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2645, 77 L.Ed.2d 110(1983); State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio
App.3d 585, 594, 657 N.E.2d 591(9th Dist. 1995); United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d
1102, 1106(5th Cir. 1993). Further, if a trained narcotics dog alerts to the odor of drugs
from a lawfully detained vehicle, an officer has probable cause to search the vehicle for
contraband. United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644(6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States
v. Berry, 90 F.3d 148, 153(6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 999 (1996)); accord,
United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 273(6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 12
392, 394(6th Cir. 1994); State v. French, 104 Ohio App.3d 740, 663 N.E.2d 367(12th
Dist. 1995), abrogated on different grounds, City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3,
665 N.E.2d 1091(1996).
{¶33} The Ohio Supreme Court has held,
“[W]hen detaining a motorist for a traffic violation, an officer may
delay the motorist for a time period sufficient to issue a ticket or a warning.
State v. Keathley (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 130, 131 [562 N.E.2d 932]. This
measure includes the period of time sufficient to run a computer check on
the driver's license, registration, and vehicle plates. State v. Bolden,
Preble App. No. CA2003–03–007, 2004-Ohio-184 [2004 WL 77617], ¶ 17,
citing Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 659, 99 S.Ct. 1391 [59
L.Ed.2d 660]. “In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a
reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop
in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer
diligently conducted the investigation.” State v. Carlson (1995), 102 Ohio
App.3d 585, 598–599 [657 N.E.2d 591], citing State v. Cook (1992), 65
Ohio St.3d 516, 521–522 [605 N.E.2d 70], and U.S. v. Sharpe (1985), 470
U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 1568 [84 L.Ed.2d 605].
State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282, ¶12. In order
to justify a continued detention beyond the normal period required to issue a citation the
officer must have a "reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity beyond that
which prompted the initial stop." Batchili, ¶15. "In determining whether a detention is
reasonable, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances." State v. Matteucci,
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 13
11th Dist. No. 2001-L-205, 2003-Ohio-702, ¶30, citing State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177,
178, 524 N.E.2d 489(1988).
{¶34} The time from the initial stop until the drug dog hit was approximately
thirty-one (31) minutes. During this time, Trooper Morrison was running the car, driver
and passenger's information through his car computer, was waiting on the current
insurance card for the driver and was asking questions of the occupants based upon the
"indicators" of potential drug use/possession that the Trooper observed. Specifically,
Trooper Morrison was waiting for the pair to find a valid proof of insurance document for
the driver, Guinto. The citation had not been completed before the drug dog arrived on
the scene. Thus, Trooper Morrison’s delay was attributable to the necessity that the
Guinto provide valid proof of insurance. Once the drug dog alerted to the vehicle, police
had probable cause to search that vehicle for contraband.
{¶35} No violation of Guinto's Fourth Amendment rights has been demonstrated.
Therefore, we find the trial court correctly denied Guinto's motion to suppress evidence.
{¶36} Guinto’s third assignment of error is overruled.
Ashland County, Case No. 12-COA-031&12-COA-032 14
{¶37} Accordingly, the judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court, Ashland
County, Ohio is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Farmer, J., and
Delaney, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
WSG:clw 0509
[Cite as State v. Guinto, 2013-Ohio-2180.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANTHONY GUINTO :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 12-COA-031
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Ashland Municipal Court, Ashland County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANTHONY GUINTO :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 12-COA-032
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Ashland Municipal Court, Ashland County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY