State v. Haralson

• Decision Date: 17 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-38
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 2052
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHAUN J. HARALSON Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2022-Ohio-2052

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHAUN J. HARALSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 2021-CA-38

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Miami

June 17, 2022

Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No 2021-CR-203A

PAUL M. WATKINS, Atty. Reg. No. 0090868, Miami County Prosecutor's Office, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

P.J CONBOY, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shaun J. Haralson, appeals from his convictions in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas after pleading no contest to three counts of aggravated possession of drugs and single counts of possession of cocaine, possession of a fentanyl related compound, and illegal conveyance of drugs. In support of his appeal, Haralson challenges the trial court's decision overruling his motion to suppress drug evidence that was discovered on his person and in his residence while law enforcement officers were executing a search warrant. Specifically, Haralson contends that the search warrant in question was improperly executed because it was not filed with the clerk of court until after the search was conducted and because the search warrant's supporting affidavit did not include a specific request to search his person. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On June 2, 2021, a Miami County grand jury returned an indictment charging Haralson with one second-degree felony count of aggravated possession of drugs, two fifth-degree felony counts of aggravated possession of drugs, and single counts of possession of cocaine, a first-degree felony; possession of a fentanyl related compound, a fifth-degree felony; and illegal conveyance of drugs, a third-degree felony. The indictment also included a forfeiture specification for $2, 644. The charges arose after law enforcement officers discovered illegal drugs while executing a search warrant for Haralson's person and his residence.

{¶ 3} Following his indictment, Haralson pled not guilty to all the charges and filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence that was discovered during the execution of the search warrant. On September 23, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Haralson's motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, Haralson clarified the arguments in his motion and argued that the search warrant was improperly executed because it: (1) was not filed with the clerk of court until after its execution; and (2) lacked sufficient probable cause to search his person due to there being no specific request to search his person in the supporting affidavit.

{¶ 4} Also during the suppression hearing, the parties stipulated to the admission of State's Exhibit No. 1, which included the search warrant at issue, the search warrant's supporting affidavit with "Attachment {A}," and the return receipt/inventory of the search warrant. The parties agreed that the trial court's review of the matter was confined to the "four corners" of State's Exhibit No. 1. Therefore, neither party presented any testimonial evidence at the suppression hearing.

{¶ 5} After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued a written decision overruling Haralson's motion to suppress. In its decision, the trial court set forth the following findings of fact:

The indictment stems from a search of [Haralson's] person and residence at 716 Boal Street, Piqua, Ohio, conducted on August 13, 2020 pursuant to a search warrant issued by Judge Gary A. Nasal of the Miami County Municipal Court on August 12, 2020. The search warrant was procured based on a six-page affidavit with attachment sworn and executed by Detective Jessup of the Miami County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") on August 12, 2020. The affidavit with attachment "A" provide[s] information regarding a four (4) month investigation of [Haralson] regarding alleged drug trafficking in the city of Piqua, Miami County, Ohio. The affidavit alleges that Detective Jessup from the MCSO along with a seasoned confidential informant performed multiple controlled illegal drug buys from [Haralson] at the 716 Boal Street residence as well as other illegal drug buys throughout Miami County which occurred out of a 2006 blue Cadillac DTS bearing OHIO JAA1480 that were directly observed by agents from the MCSO.

Judge Nasal determined that the search warrant affidavit and attachment established probable cause to search [Haralson], the 716 Boal Street residence, [and] particular property including any vehicles directly related to the residence, namely a 2006 Cadillac DTS OHIO JAA1480.

A search of the 716 Boal Street residence occurred late [in] the morning on August 13, 2020. MCSO found evidence of illegal drugs, drug instruments/paraphernalia and evidence of [Haralson's] use/possession of [the] 2006 Cadillac DTS. After searching [Haralson's] residence, MCSO initiated a traffic stop of [Haralson] who was driving the vehicle which was subject of the search warrant in the city of Piqua. At that time, MCSO conducted a personal search of [Haralson's] car and person pursuant to the search warrant which produced illegal drugs.

Decision Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Oct. 13, 2021), p. 2-3.

{¶ 6} With regard to the first claim in Haralson's motion to suppress, the trial court determined that there is no requirement for a search warrant to be filed with the clerk of court before its execution and that executing a search warrant before filing it is not unlawful. Accordingly, the trial court found that the search warrant pertaining to Haralson and his residence was lawfully executed even though it was filed with the clerk of court one day after the search was conducted.

{¶ 7} Concerning the second claim in Haralson's motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the detective who prepared the supporting affidavit specifically named Haralson therein and outlined facts which indicated that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found on Haralson's person. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that when reviewing the totality of the circumstances averred in the supporting affidavit, there was sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant for Haralson's person even though the affidavit did not include a specific request to conduct such a search.

{¶ 8} After the trial court denied Haralson's motion to suppress, Haralson entered a no contest plea to all the charges in the indictment and to the forfeiture specification. The trial court accepted Haralson's no contest plea, found him guilty, and scheduled the matter for a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate, indefinite term of eight to eleven and a half years in prison and suspended Haralson's driver's license for five years. The trial court also ordered Haralson to pay $175 in restitution to the Miami County Sheriff's Office and $619 in court costs.

{¶ 9} Haralson now appeals from his conviction, raising a single assignment of error for review.

Assignment of Error

{¶ 10} Under his sole assignment of error, Haralson challenges the trial court's decision overruling his motion to suppress the drug evidence that was discovered during the execution of the search warrant. In support of his assignment of error, Haralson raises the same arguments that he raised in his motion to suppress. Specifically, Haralson claims that the search warrant was improperly executed because it: (1) was not filed with the clerk of court until one day after its execution; and (2) lacked sufficient probable cause to search his person due to there being no specific request to search his person in the supporting affidavit.

Standard of Review

{¶ 11} "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." (Citation omitted.) State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. "Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. * * * 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." (Citations omitted.) Id.

Filing the Search Warrant

{¶ 12} Under his first argument, Haralson contends that all of the evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant should have been suppressed because the search warrant was not filed with the clerk of court until one day after its execution. According to Haralson, the search warrant had to be filed with the clerk of court before it was executed. We, however, disagree.

{¶ 13} In State v. Lumbus, 2016-Ohio-380, 59 N.E.3d 580 (8th Dist.), the Eighth District Court of Appeals addressed the same argument raised by Haralson. Specifically the appellant in Lumbus claimed that R.C. 2933.23, the statute governing search warrant affidavits, required a search warrant to be filed with the clerk of court before the search takes place. Id. ¶ 79-81.

{¶ 14} R.C. 2933.23 provides, in relevant part, that:

A search warrant shall not be issued until there is filed with the judge or magistrate an affidavit that particularly describes the place to be searched, names or describes the person to be searched, and names or describes the property to be searched for and seized; that states substantially the offense in relation to the property and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that the

...