State v. Hartley
| Decision Date | 17 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1701,1701 |
| Citation | 554 N.E.2d 950,51 Ohio App.3d 47 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HARTLEY, Appellant. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under Ohio's criminal procedure, there is no provision for a motion to dismiss a criminal case founded on the lack of probable cause. The determination of whether probable cause exists is the very function of the trial.
2. A motion to suppress is a motion which may raise constitutional claims which are capable of determination without a trial of the cause. The trial court is required to hold a hearing on a suppression motion, pursuant to Crim.R. 12(E), only when the claims are supported by factual allegations which would justify relief.
3. Crim.R. 47 provides that a court may make provision for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing.
Norman E. Brague, Law Director, for appellee.
Paul M. Earle, for appellant.
The defendant below, Thomas E. Hartley, filed two motions which are the subject of this appeal. The first motion, in its entirety, states:
"Now comes the Defendant, who hereby moves this Court for an Order dismissing the within action, or in the alternative, suppressing all evidence obtained therein, as there was no probable cause for the arrest of the defendant."
The second motion, in its totality, states:
No memorandum, affidavit or other explanation of the basis upon which these motions were being sought accompanied either motion, except for the reference to R.C. 4511.191(C). The trial court denied both motions, finding that they failed to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 47 because they did not include sufficient supporting information. The trial court cited State v. Griggy (1982), 1 Ohio Misc.2d 16, 1 OBR 457, 440 N.E.2d 74, and Solon v. Mallion (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 130, 10 OBR 156, 460 N.E.2d 729, in support of the denials.
The defense did not file any further motions and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. The defendant was subsequently found guilty of violating both R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and 4511.19(A)(3). He was, however, sentenced on only one offense. The trial proceedings were not available as part of the record on appeal.
The defendant raises two assignments of error, each claiming that the trial court erred in denying the two motions shown above, without holding an evidentiary hearing. First, neither motion requested that an oral hearing be conducted. Second, Crim.R. 47 provides that a court may make "provision * * * for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing * * *."
Under Ohio's criminal procedure, there is no provision for a motion to dismiss a criminal case founded on the lack of probable cause. The determination of whether or not probable cause exists is the very function of the trial. State v. McNamee (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 175, 17 OBR 306, 478 N.E.2d 843. Thus, the trial court properly denied this motion without a hearing.
A motion to suppress, on the other hand, is a motion which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Raymond Smith
... ... factual allegations justifying relief, a trial court has ... discretion to deny the motion without a hearing. State v ... Holey (Sept. 4, 1987), Ottawa App. No. OT- 86-61, ... unreported, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 8574, *4. See Ohio v ... Hartley (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 47, 48; Solon v ... Mallion (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 130, 132. The Supreme ... Court of Ohio has found that "[t]he Fifth Amendment does ... not bar volunteered statements." State v. Waddy ... (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 440, citing Miranda v ... ...
-
State v. Brewster, 2004 Ohio 2993 (OH 6/11/2004)
...must conduct a hearing only when factual allegations that would justify relief support the claims in the motion. State v. Hartley (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 47, 48, 554 N.E.2d 950; Solon v. Mallion (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 130, 132, 460 N.E.2d {¶31} In this case, the successive motions raised the......
-
State v. Lloyd
...v. Shields (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 118, 123, 663 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Blackmon, J., concurring), citing State v. Hartley (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 47, 48, 554 N.E.2d 950, 950-951. Accordingly, "[t]he proper remedy for Fourth Amendment violations is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the......
-
State v. Hehr, 2005 Ohio 353 (OH 1/19/2005)
...upon the lack of probable cause. See Blanchester v. Hester (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 815, 612 N.E.2d 412, 415; State v. Hartley (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 47, 48, 554 N.E.2d 950, 951. The proper remedy for Fourth Amendment violations is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the charges. No......