State v. Hartfield
| Docket Number | 13-23-04 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 4708 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARCUS E. HARTFIELD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2023-Ohio-4708
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARCUS E. HARTFIELD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 13-23-04
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Seneca
December 26, 2023
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 22-CR-0021
Judgment Affirmed
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Derek W. DeVine for Appellee
OPINION
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marcus E. Hartfield ("Hartfield") appeals the judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; that his sentence was contrary to law; and that the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On January 23, 2022, Alexis Haudenshild ("Haudenshild") observed her neighbor's boyfriend, Hartfield, yelling as he walked around his yard with a gun. She testified that he was "just acting kind of off," describing his behavior as "erratic" and "paranoid." (Tr. 8). He was also getting in and out of a car that was parked outside of his trailer. Haudenshild testified that this situation "progressively got worse" and that he "was shooting" the gun with no one around him.[1] (Tr. 9). Haudenshild then decided to call 9-1-1.
{¶3} Deputy Christopher Potter ("Deputy Potter") was one of four officers from the Seneca County Sherriff s Office who responded to this call. He testified that the officers drove to the mobile home park, exited their cruisers, and approached Hartfield's trailer on foot. Since Hartfield reportedly had a gun, three of the officers had their service weapons drawn and pointed at the ground in a "low, ready"
position. (Tr. 72). Deputy Potter did not have his service weapon drawn when Hartfield emerged from the trailer.
{¶4} To ensure that Hartfield was not armed, Deputy Potter directed Hartfield to show them his hands. Deputy Potter then explained why the officers were present. At this point, Deputy Luke Cantu ("Deputy Cantu") asked for permission to conduct a pat down of Hartfield's person to determine if he had any weapons. Hartfield complied and was found to be unarmed. The officers then holstered their service weapons.
{¶5} Deputy Potter asked Hartfield "what was going on." (Tr. 40). Hartfield replied that "they were running around knocking on doors and hiding in sheds * * *." (Tr. 40). When Deputy Potter inquired into "who 'they' were," Hartfield said that "he didn't know but * * * they were out to get him." (Tr. 40). Deputy Potter then asked if Hartfield had a firearm. While he denied having a gun, Hartfield indicated that his girlfriend owned one and that he did not know where it was located. He also reported that his girlfriend was not home but that his daughter was sleeping inside the trailer.
{¶6} Deputy Potter testified that, at this point, he "asked him [Hartfield] if we could go inside and talk, and he said yeah." (Tr. 41). Deputy Potter testified that Hartfield then "walked up the stairs, opened the front door, stepped inside, held the door open for me." (Tr. 41). Once inside, the officers asked Hartfield to sit on the couch while they verified whether anyone else was in the trailer besides
Hartfield's juvenile daughter. Hartfield directed them to a room closed off by a curtain. Deputy Potter drew the curtain back, observed two children sleeping in the bedroom, and then returned to where Hartfield was located.
{¶7} Upon entering the trailer, Deputy Don Breidenbach ("Deputy Breidenbach") looked to his right and observed an open handgun case sitting on the kitchen table. He testified that, since he wanted to secure any readily accessible firearms, he went to examine the gun case. The case contained a loaded magazine but no handgun. Deputy Breidenbach then looked up and observed a bag filled with a white powdery substance on top of a freezer in the kitchen. This substance appeared to be cocaine. At this point, Hartfield was detained and informed of his Miranda rights.
{¶8} The deputies then contacted Detective Brandon Bell ("Detective Bell") of the Fostoria Police Department. After arriving at the trailer, Detective Bell located two spent shell casings on the ground just outside the front door. The officers secured a search warrant and located a Glock handgun with a loaded magazine on the front seat of the car that was sitting outside of the trailer.
{¶9} On February 23, 2022, Hartfield was indicted on one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3), a third-degree felony; one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a third-degree felony; one count of cocaine possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a second-degree felony; and
one count of endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), a first-degree misdemeanor.
{¶10} On April 11, 2022, Hartfield filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he did not voluntarily consent for the deputies to enter the trailer. At a suppression hearing on August 16, 2022, Haudenshild, the four deputies who responded to the call, and Detective Bell testified. On October 5, 2022, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. On January 27, 2023, Hartfield entered a plea of no contest with a consent to a finding of guilt to all four charges in the indictment. The trial court accepted his pleas and issued a judgment entry of sentencing on March 9, 2023.
{¶11} Hartfield filed his notice of appeal on March 30, 2023. On appeal, he raises the following three assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress, where the trial court's factual conclusions were not supported by competent, credible evidence, and where the trial court incorrectly concluded that the entry by officers into Appellant's residence was lawful, that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and that Appellant's statements to law enforcement were lawfully obtained.
Second Assignment of Error
Whether the trial court's sentence, with respect to jail-time credit, was contrary to law, where the record showed that Appellant had been held in lieu of bond, in the instant case since his arrest, and where the evidence failed to show that Appellant had received credit for time served due to a 'holder' in Wood County.
Third Assignment of Error
Whether R.C. 2967.271, also known as the 'Reagan Tokes Act,' is unconstitutional under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions, where it improperly allows a non-judicial agency, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, to unilaterally extend Appellant's sentence beyond the minimum prison term imposed by the trial court.
First Assignment of Error
{¶12} Hartfield asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he did not give voluntary consent for the deputies to enter the trailer.
Standard of Review
{¶13} On appeal, "motions to suppress present 'mixed questions of law and fact.'" State v. Kerr, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-17-01, 2017-Ohio-8516, ¶ 18, quoting State v. Yeaples, 180 Ohio App.3d 720, 2009-Ohio-184, 907 N.E.2d 333, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.).
At a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. [State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8]. See also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 552[, 1995-Ohio-104, 651 N.E.2d 965] (1995). When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, deference is given to the trial court's findings of fact so long as they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Burnside at ¶ 8, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19[, 437 N.E.2d 583] (1982).
State v. Sidey, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-32, 2019-Ohio-5169, ¶ 8. "Accepting [the trial court's findings of] fact[] 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. James, 2016-Ohio-7262, 71 N.E.3d 1257, ¶ 8 (3d Dist), quoting Burnside at ¶ 8.
Legal Standard
{¶14} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution "protects the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in their homes." James at ¶ 9. "A warrantless search of a person's home is presumed unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement is shown." State v. Reilly, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-19-28, 2020-Ohio-850, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Yost, 5th Dist. Perry No. 18-CA-00024, 2019-Ohio-5446, ¶ 23. Searches that are conducted with consent fall into a clearly delineated exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Hale, 2023-Ohio-980, 212 N.E.3d 32, ¶ 11 (3d Dist).
[W]here the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.
State v. Wagner, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-20-06, 2020-Ohio-5574, ¶ 12, quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). "Whether consent was freely and voluntarily given, or whether it was the product of duress, coercion, or deception, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances." Hale, supra, at ¶ 11.
Factors to be considered in determining whether consent is voluntarily given include: (1) the suspect's custodial status and the length of the
detention; (2) whether consent was given in public or at a police station; (3) the presence of threats, promises, or coercive police procedures; (4) the words and conduct of the suspect; (5) the suspect's awareness of his right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial