State v. Patton , 2022 Ohio 3856 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Patton, 2022-Ohio-3856.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HURON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-22-001
Appellee Trial Court No. CRI 2021 0464
v.
Donald R. Patton DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 28, 2022
*****
James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney,
for appellee.
Tyler Naud Jechura, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a November 23, 2021 judgment of the Huron County
Court of Common Pleas, granting, in part, and denying, in part, appellant’s motion to
suppress, in the underlying possession of fentanyl case. For the reasons set forth below,
this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Donald Patton, submits the following three assignments of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED [IN PART] THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE MR. PATTON WAS NOT
COMMITTING ANY ACTION THAT MADE HIM SUBJECT TO
ARREST.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED [IN PART] THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THIS DECISION IS AGAINST
THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CREATING A
MANIFEST MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT
THE MOTION TO [SUPPRESS] BECAUSE MR. PATTON WAS
SUBJECTED TO A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION WITHOUT
BEING MIRANDIZED.
{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On the evening
of June 5, 2021, three different citizens in the Huron County city of Willard called the
local police department to report their concerns upon witnessing a sweaty, partially clad
man, dancing and acting erratically while in a public roadway near the intersection of
Maple St. and Laurel St.
2.
{¶ 4} The witnesses perceived that the man was under the influence of drugs and
that his conduct was unsafe. Based upon their observations, they called the police to
report their concerns regarding what was taking place.
{¶ 5} In response to the multiple calls received reporting concerns in a short
period of time, the police department timely dispatched an officer to the scene to
investigate the matter.
{¶ 6} Upon arriving at the scene, the responding officer instantly recognized
appellant, with whom the officer was familiar based upon his past police interactions with
appellant in connection to appellant’s drug abuse.
{¶ 7} The officer observed appellant to be on foot, mostly unclothed, sweating
“very bad”, erratically “flapping his hands around”, with sores visible on his body,
twitching frenetically, and in a confused mental state.
{¶ 8} Based upon these observations, in conjunction with an awareness of
appellant’s history of drug abuse, the officer determined that appellant was in a state of
drug intoxication and presented a risk of harm to himself or others given his presence
upon a public roadway in a compromised condition.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, the officer advised appellant that he needed to conduct a safety
search. The officer then inquired if appellant had anything on his person that might
present a risk in the course of the safety search.
3.
{¶ 10} After a brief back and forth, during which appellant protested that he had
not done anything wrong, appellant ultimately disclosed that he was in possession of
several drug needles.
{¶ 11} In the course of then being handcuffed, mirandized, and arrested, appellant
conveyed to the officer that he had taken drugs, namely fentanyl, and turned over several
drug needles containing fentanyl to the arresting officer.
{¶ 12} On August 27, 2021, appellant was indicted on one count of possession of
fentanyl, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of
possession of drug abuse instruments, in violation of R.C. 2925.12, as enhanced to a
misdemeanor of the first degree due to prior convictions.
{¶ 13} On September 17, 2021, appellant filed a motion to suppress. On
November 15, 2021, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to
suppress.
{¶ 14} During the suppression hearing, appellee presented the testimony of the
Willard Police Department dispatcher who was on-duty and fielded the emergency calls
from the public regarding appellant dancing erratically in the roadway in a state of partial
undress.
{¶ 15} The dispatcher first testified regarding the various education and training
that she had received in connection to her professional position.
4.
{¶ 16} The dispatcher then proceeded to testify that while on duty on the evening
of June 5, 2021, she took calls from three different individuals within a short period time
who each conveyed various concerns regarding witnessing a man wearing nothing but
shorts, appeared to be under the influence, and was dancing erratically in a public
roadway.
{¶ 17} The callers consistently described the unusual conduct, unsettled demeanor,
conveyed safety concerns, and reported the man’s presence in the same general location.
The dispatcher testified that she forwarded this information so that officers could be
dispatched to the scene and address the situation.
{¶ 18} The trial court next heard testimony from the responding officer. The
officer testified in detail regarding his specialized training in drug and alcohol related
offenses, testified that in the course of his years employed in law enforcement he had
encountered individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol on a daily basis, and
conveyed that he had been employed as a police officer since 2011.
{¶ 19} The officer next testified that while on duty on June 5, 2021, he responded
to a call of an intoxicated male “dancing in the road” in the vicinity of Maplewood St.
and Laurel St. in Willard.
{¶ 20} Upon arriving at the location, the officer observed appellant, with whom he
was familiar, as he had previously dealt with appellant on prior drug related incidents.
5.
{¶ 21} The officer testified that he observed appellant to be, “sweating, very bad,
and flapping his hands around.” The officer noticed that appellant, who was mostly
unclothed, had, “open sores all over his body.”
{¶ 22} The officer further testified that upon approaching and interacting with
appellant, he observed that appellant was, “sweating profusely, looked confused * * * his
speech was very fast, and he could not keep himself under control, [his] body [was]
twitching a lot.”
{¶ 23} The officer next testified that based upon these direct observations, in
conjunction with his prior involvement with appellant related to drug abuse, he concluded
that appellant was exhibiting signs of drug intoxication and presented a risk of harm to
himself or others by being in a public roadway while under the influence of drugs.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, the officer advised appellant that he was going to conduct a
safety search of him. The officer asked appellant if he had anything in his pockets that
may be unsafe and that he needed to remove before the officer searched the pockets of
appellant’s shorts.
{¶ 25} While being handcuffed, mirandized, and arrested, appellant disclosed his
drug usage, and produced several drug needles containing fentanyl, one of them open and
uncapped, to the officer.
{¶ 26} The trial court next heard the direct testimony of appellant.
6.
{¶ 27} Unconvincingly, while appellant recalled taking fentanyl that day, recalled
his interactions with the officer, recalled being handcuffed, recalled being taken to the
hospital to have his vital signs checked and his sores bandaged, appellant nevertheless
maintained that he was uncertain whether or not he could recall dancing about in the
roadway.
{¶ 28} Subsequently, appellant’s testimony on this point shifted, and he next
maintained that he could now recall that he definitely was not dancing in the street, in
contravention of the multiple eyewitness callers observing him do so, and contrary to the
responding officer’s observations. At this juncture, the parties rested and the motion was
taken under advisement.
{¶ 29} On November 23, 2021, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to
suppress, in part, and denied it, in part. Specifically, in response to a brief gap in time
between appellant being handcuffed and being mirandized, the trial court excluded
evidence from an approximately one-minute period of time elapsing between appellant
being handcuffed and being mirandized.
{¶ 30} In denying the suppression of the balance of the evidence, the trial court
emphasized that appellant’s unsafe actions that evening had been observed by three
separate, independent eyewitnesses, each of whom was so concerned that each separately
called the police.
7.
{¶ 31} The trial court similarly noted that several of the callers specifically
expressed concern about the risk of harm created by appellant appearing to be under the
influence while dancing erratically about in a public roadway.
{¶ 32} The trial court next noted that upon arrival at the scene, the officer, whom
was acquainted with appellant and aware of his history of drug abuse, made a multitude
of specific first-hand observations of appellant, all consistent with the notion that
appellant was in a state of drug intoxication, a criminal offense, and that appellant
presented a safety risk to himself and others by cavorting about in a public roadway while
under the influence of drugs. Accordingly, given ample evidence of criminal offenses
transpiring, the balance of the evidence was not suppressed.
{¶ 33} Following the above-described split motion to suppress decision, appellant
pled no contest to the offenses. Appellant was sentenced to a three-year term of
community control and completion of a residential drug treatment program. This appeal
ensued.
{¶ 34} All three assignments of error are rooted in the common legal premise that
the trial court erred in the motion to suppress decision. Accordingly, they will be
addressed simultaneously.
{¶ 35} For clarity, we note that the applicable standard of review for a disputed
motion to suppress decision is whether the decision was supported by competent, credible
evidence, rather than the manifest weight standard put forth by appellant.
8.
{¶ 36} We further note that appellant’s third assignment of error captions the
motion to suppress as a motion to dismiss. This case did not entail a motion to dismiss.
Thus, we shall construe all assignments of error as challenging the motion to suppress
decision.
{¶ 37} It is well-established that appellate court review of a disputed motion to
suppress determination presents a mixed question of fact and law.
{¶ 38} As held by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d
165, 10 N.E.3d 691, 2014-Ohio-1574, ¶ 7,
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. Mills, 62 Ohio
St.3d 357, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). Consequently, an appellate court must
accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent,
credible evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E. 583 (1982).
Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must then independently
determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether
the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. State v. McNamara, 124
Ohio App.3d 708, 707 N.E.2d 539 (1997).
9.
{¶ 39} In support of this appeal, appellant makes the unilateral, blanket assertion
that he did not commit, “any acts that left him subject to arrest.” The record of evidence
does not bear out this position.
{¶ 40} On the contrary, the record contains considerable evidence, consisting of
emergency calls from three separate eyewitnesses, in conjunction with detailed testimony
from the responding officer, all consistently observing that on June 5, 2021, appellant
was dancing in a public motor vehicle roadway, wearing nothing but a pair of shorts, at
approximately 9:00 p.m., sweating, twitching, and otherwise behaving erratically in a
way consistent with being in a state of drug intoxication, reflective of suspicious, unsafe,
and criminal activity, subjecting appellant to the possibility of arrest. This conduct was
observed by multiple, separate parties, including law enforcement personnel and multiple
concerned citizens.
{¶ 41} Accordingly, appellant’s claim that the record does not show that he
committed any actions that left him subject to arrest runs counter to the record of
evidence and is without merit.
{¶ 42} While appellant next argues that the trial court’s partial denial of the
motion to suppress was against the manifest weight of the evidence, we shall construe
this assertion as disputing that the motion to suppress determination was supported by
competent, credible evidence, the applicable standard of appellate review.
10.
{¶ 43} We find that the record is replete with competent, credible evidence in
support of the trial court’s determination that the officer possessed the requisite suspicion
of a criminal offense by appellant so as to warrant appellant being stopped, questioned,
and searched by the responding officer.
{¶ 44} As discussed in detail above, multiple emergency callers reported concerns
of appellant dancing about erratically in a public roadway, clad in only shorts, and
appearing to be under the influence. The responding officer observed appellant to be
sweating profusely, twitching uncontrollably, confused, speaking fast, and exhibiting
open skin sores upon his body.
{¶ 45} The record reflects competent, credible evidence in support of the trial
court’s partial denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.
{¶ 46} Lastly, appellant argues that, “the trial court erred when it failed to grant
the motion to dismiss.” We reiterate that the record reflects no motion to dismiss. As
such, we construe this as an additional refutation of the trial court’s partial denial of
appellant’s motion to suppress. In support, appellant asserts that he was improperly
subjected to custodial interrogation prior to being mirandized.
{¶ 47} We note that in the subject motion to suppress determination, the trial court
found that there was a brief period of time, approximately one-minute, during which
appellant was handcuffed and interrogated, but prior to being mirandized.
11.
{¶ 48} Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion to suppress, in part, as
related to that portion of the time, and excluded that portion of the evidence.
{¶ 49} As the trial court remedied the issue via the partial granting of the motion
to suppress for that portion of time, and the denial of the balance of the motion to
suppress was supported by competent, credible evidence, as discussed in detail above, we
find appellant’s final argument to be without merit.
{¶ 50} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Huron County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
12.