State v. Janes

[Cite as State v. Janes, 2018-Ohio-1491.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
NATHANAEL L. JANES : Case No. 17CA43
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2017CR0207
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 16, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH C. SNYDER DAVID M. WATSON
38 South Park Street 3 North Main Street
Mansfield, OH 44902 Suite 702
Mansfield, OH 44902
Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Nathanael L. Janes, appeals the April 18, 2017
judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, denying his
motion to suppress. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On December 20, 2016, police officers were dispatched to appellant's
apartment on a reported domestic disturbance, possibly involving a gun. When the police
officers arrived, they heard screams coming from the apartment. They knocked on the
door and did not receive a response. They then forced entry and encountered appellant
and a woman. The two were detained while the police officers performed a protective
sweep of the apartment. When police checked an open closet, they discovered a gun on
the top shelf partially covered by a sheet. The gun had been stolen.
{¶ 3} On April 6, 2017, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one
count of receiving stolen property (the gun) in violation of R.C. 2913.51.
{¶ 4} On April 14, 2017, appellant filed a motion to suppress, challenging the
search of his apartment and the seizure of the gun without a warrant. A hearing was held
on April 17, 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The
decision was memorialized by judgment entry filed April 18, 2017.
{¶ 5} A jury trial commenced on April 17, 2017. The jury found appellant guilty
as charged. By sentencing entry filed April 20, 2017, the trial court sentenced appellant
to sixteen months in prison.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 3
I
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS."
I
{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress. We disagree.
{¶ 9} As recently stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Leak, 145 Ohio
St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-154, 47 N.E.3d 821, ¶ 12:
"Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question
of law and fact." State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372,
797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. In ruling on 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." Id.,citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). On
appeal, we "must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported
by competent, credible evidence." Id., citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d
19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accepting those facts as true, we must then
"independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the
conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal
standard." Id.Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 4
{¶ 10} As the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690,
116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 94 (1996), "…as a general matter determinations of
reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal."
{¶ 11} In his April 14, 2017 motion to suppress, appellant challenged the search of
his apartment and the seizure of the gun without a warrant. Appellant argued "the seizure
does not fall into one of the warrant requirement exceptions that Ohio law recognizes."
{¶ 12} An evidentiary hearing was held on April 17, 2017. Appellee called one
witness, Mansfield Police Patrolman Joshua Frech. Patrolman Frech testified on
December 20, 2016, he was dispatched to appellant's apartment on a reported domestic
disturbance, possibly involving a gun. T. at 9-10. He stated as part of his duties, he
needed to "make sure the people are safe and make sure we can locate and look for the
gun." T. at 11. When he and his partner arrived, they heard screams coming from the
apartment. T. at 11-12, 23. It sounded like someone was in distress. T. at 27. They
knocked on the door, but did not receive a response. T. at 12. They then forced entry
and encountered appellant and a woman. T. at 12-13, 23. Appellant did not have a gun
on his person. T. at 15. The police officers did not know how many people were in the
apartment and whether there were other victims and/or a perpetrator with a gun. T. at
13, 15, 24. The two occupants were detained while the police officers performed a
protective sweep of the apartment. T. at 13-14, 23-24. The purpose of the sweep was
to "check every closet to make sure no one is hiding. Check under the beds, anything
that anybody can hide in." T. at 14. When police checked an open closet in the main
bedroom, they discovered a gun on the top shelf partially covered by a sheet. T. at 16,
25. The handle of the gun was sticking out. Id.Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 5
{¶ 13} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to
suppress, stating the following (T. at 32-33):
The Fourth Amendment all comes down to what is reasonable. I do
think it is reasonable for an officer who gets a call about an individual with
a gun in a domestic violence situation, for him to investigate. No one would
come to the door, and they had to force entry. Made contact with a male
and female. At that point, they still don't know if that's the extent of the call.
They do the protective sweep. They do see the gun in plain view during the
protective sweep.
I think it's reasonable for the officer to be where he was doing the
sweep through the home. And then I think they collected the firearm, as
they had information prior to the scene that there was a firearm involved.
{¶ 14} In its judgment entry filed April 18, 2017, the trial court found Patrolman
Frech's testimony to be credible.
{¶ 15} As held by the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S.
325, 337, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276: "The Fourth Amendment permits a properly
limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer
possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be
swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene." That is
because police officers have an interest "in taking steps to assure themselves that the
house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other
Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 6
persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack." Id. at 333.
"[A]n in-home arrest puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary's 'turf.'
" Id. The court held, "that as an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a precautionary
matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other
spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be
immediately launched." Id. at 334. A protective sweep "may extend only to a cursory
inspection of those spaces where a person may be found." Id. at 335.
{¶ 16} Given the facts of this case and the reasoning in Buie, we find the protective
sweep was not overly broad. We concur with the trial court's analysis that the sweep was
reasonable.
{¶ 17} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying the motion to
suppress.
{¶ 18} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Richland County, Case No. 17CA43 7
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, Earle, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
EEW/db