[Cite as State v. Mullen , 2018-Ohio-5188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2018-A-0018 - vs - : NATASHA M. MULLEN, : Defendant-Appellant. : Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula Municipal Court, Case No. 2017 CRB 01131. Judgment: Reversed and remanded. Michael Franklin, Ashtabula City Solicitor, and Lori B. Lamer, Assistant Ashtabula City Solicitor, Ashtabula Municipal Court, 110 West 44th Street, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Jane Timonere, Timonere Law Offices, L.L.C., 4 Lawyers Row, Jefferson, OH 44047- 1099 (For Defendant-Appellant). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} Appellant, Natasha M. Mullen, appeals from the January 8, 2018 judgment entry of the Ashtabula Municipal Court. Appellant takes issue with the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. {¶2} On July 10, 2017, a complaint was filed in the Ashtabula Municipal Court, charging appellant with possession of drug paraphernalia, a fourth-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), and possession of drugs, a minor misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. {¶3} On August 21, 2017, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence. Appellant argued that all the evidence obtained by the state must be suppressed because it was gathered in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. A hearing was held on October 20, 2017, at which Deputy Brian Sterrick testified. {¶4} The trial court denied the motion to suppress on October 30, 2017. {¶5} Appellant entered a plea of no contest. She was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of $150.00 on each count of the complaint in addition to court costs. The trial court granted a stay of the sentence pending appeal. The trial court’s judgment entry was filed on January 8, 2018. {¶6} Appellant noticed a timely appeal. She raises one assignment of error: {¶7} “The trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress. The officer conducted an illegal detention and search of Ms. Mullen, the fruits of which must be excluded from evidence.” {¶8} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. When considering 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.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶8, citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366 (1992). “Consequently, an appellate court 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 (1982). “[T]he appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, 2 whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id., citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 (4th Dist.1997). {¶9} The following findings were made by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals