State v. Sheets

[Cite as State v. Sheets, 2020-Ohio-6801.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2020CA00056
MIA SHEETS
Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2019CR2081
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 17, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO KENNETH W. FRAME
Prosecuting Attorney Stark County Public Defender
Stark County, Ohio 201 Cleveland Avenue, S.W., Ste. #104
Canton, Ohio 44702
KRISTINE W. BEARD
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South, Suite #510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Mia Sheets appeals her conviction and sentence
entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, on one count of trafficking in drugs,
after the trial court found her guilty following its acceptance of
her no contest plea. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} On November 13, 2019, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on
one count of trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(2)(a), a felony of
the fifth degree. Appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on December
13, 2019, and entered a plea of not guilty to the Indictment.
{¶3} Appellant filed a motion to suppress on January 6, 2020. Therein, Appellant
argued the officer did not have probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop pursuant to
R.C. 4503.21(A)(2) [unsecured license plate] as the officer did not observe her license
plate swing. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on January 20, 2020. The
following evidence was adduced at the hearing:
{¶4} Alliance Police Officer Christopher McCord testified he was on routine patrol
on September 26, 2019, when he observed a dark colored Dodge Avenger traveling
northbound on South Union Avenue in Alliance, Stark County, Ohio. Officer McCord
followed the Avenger for approximately one-half mile, during which time he noticed the
rear license plate was attached with only one bolt in the upper left corner. The officer
initiated a stop due to the claimed license plate violation, explaining the plate “had already
swung or kind of fell, with the top right falling down, it wasn’t secured.” Transcript of
Suppression Hearing at 7. Officer McCord also noticed the license plate was stopped
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 3
from slanting down any further because of the indents in the license plate bracket area of
the vehicle.
{¶5} The state played video footage from Officer McCord’s body camera. Officer
McCord described what was depicted in the video. Officer McCord noted Appellant
“push[ed] the sagging part [of the license plate] back up to line up the holes,” adding “the
only reason it didn’t swing further was the actual, the way the small area for the license
plate is, when that right corner hit the side bracket of the bumper, that’s the only thing that
prevented it from swinging further down.” at 11-12.
{¶6} Via Judgment Entry filed January 21, 2020, the trial court denied Appellant’s
motion to suppress. Appellant appeared before the trial court on January 30, 2020,
withdrew her former plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to one count of
trafficking in drugs. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and found her guilty as
charged. Appellant waived her pre-sentence investigation. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to community control for a period of three years and ordered her to pay costs
and restitution.
{¶7} It is from her conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the
following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO
GRANT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 4
I
{¶8} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on
a motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said
findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio
St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 597 N.E.2d
1141(1991); State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592, 621 N.E.2d 726(1993). Second, an
appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the
findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing
an error of law. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (1993). Finally,
assuming the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the
evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant may argue the
trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in
the motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must
independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the
facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry, 95 Ohio
App.3d 93, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (1994); State v. Claytor, 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 620 N.E.2d
906 (1993); Guysinger, supra. 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 911 (1996), “... as a general matter
determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de
novo on appeal.”
{¶9} 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 the credibility
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 5
of witnesses. 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).
{¶10} Officer McCord stopped Appellant’s vehicle for a violation of R.C.
4503.21(A), which provides:
No person who is the owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall fail
to display in plain view on the front and rear of the motor vehicle the
distinctive number and registration mark, including any county identification
sticker and any validation sticker issued under sections
4503.19 and 4503.191 of the Revised Code, furnished by the director of
public safety * * *. All license plates shall be securely fastened so as not to
swing, and shall not be covered by any material that obstructs their visibility.
{¶11} Appellant asserts Officer McCord did not have probable cause to believe a
traffic violation had occurred. Appellant submits the evidence reveals the officer did not
observe the license plate swing while the vehicle was in motion, rather Officer McCord
only saw the plate move after he effectuated the stop and Appellant herself moved the
plate with her hand. Appellant relies on this Court’s opinion in
State v. Culberson, 197Ohio App.3d 705, 2012-Ohio-448, 968 N.E.2d 597 (5th Dist.), in
support of her position because the license plate on her vehicle was not swinging, there
was no violation of the statute; therefore, the stop was unlawful.
{¶12} In Culberson, this Court addressed the issue of whether an officer had
reasonable grounds to stop a vehicle and temporarily detain the driver to investigate. In
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 6
that case, Lt. Nakia Hendrix of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was on his way to work
when he passed a vehicle with West Virginia license plates. Id. at ¶ 2. The patrolman
noticed the rear plate was canted as it was affixed by only one screw in the upper corner.
Id. After allowing the vehicle to pass him, Lt. Hendrix initiated a traffic stop based upon
the license plate violation. Id. Lt. Hendrix discovered the driver, Culberson, did not have
a driver's license and the vehicle did not belong to him. Id. at ¶ 3. Lt. Hendrix arranged
for the vehicle to be towed after he was unsuccessful in his attempt to contact the vehicle’s
owner. Id. During the administrative inventory of the vehicle, Lt. Hendrix located
contraband in the trunk. Id. As a result, Culberson was indicted on one count of
possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(3)(d). Id. at ¶ 4.
{¶13} Culberson filed a motion to suppress, alleging Lt. Hendrix lacked a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop the vehicle. Id. Following a hearing, the
trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding “a law enforcement officer in Ohio
does not have sufficient, legal probable cause to effect a traffic stop of a motor vehicle
whose license plate(s) is/are securely fastened, to the extent that the plate(s) is/are not
in the actual act of ‘swinging.’ ” Id. at ¶ 5-6. The state appealed.
{¶14} In affirming the trial court’s decision, the majority of this Court in Culberson
discussed the case relied upon by the trial court in the case sub judice, State v. Dickerson,
179 Ohio App.3d 754, 2008-Ohio-6544. The majority in Culberson quoted the distinction
drawn by the trial court from the Dickerson case where the license plate was “resting” on
the vehicle bumper, and “able to swing.” As pointed out by Judge Edwards in her dissent
in Culberson, the trial court further distinguished Dickerson because Culberson’s license
place was “lodged” against the bumper, “preventing it from continued swinging.”
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00056 7
(Emphasis added). Judge Edwards noted the license plate’s “potential to swing” in
concluding the trial court in Culberson erred in suppressing the evidence of drugs.
{¶15} We disagree with Judge Edwards’ conclusion whether the license plate was
lodged and prevented from continued swinging versus merely resting on the bumper with
the potential to swing is a “distinction without a difference.” It appears in the case sub
judice, Appellant’s license plate was not lodged and prevented from swinging as was the
case in Culberson, but was stopped from slanting down any further because of the indents
in the license plate bracket (more analogous to “resting” as compared to “lodged”) and
had the potential to swing as demonstrated by Appellant’s being able to put the license
plate back up.
{¶16} The trial court herein recognized this same distinction in its analysis in
denying Appellant’s motion to suppress. We agree with the trial court’s analysis.
{¶17} Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Delaney, J. concur