Cleveland v. Fields
2016 Ohio 7398
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 14, 2015, Cleveland police were called to Dollar General; officers were asked to investigate David Fields because his car was parked "in a weird way" in an unlined area of the lot.
- Officers White and France approached Fields, smelled alcohol on his breath, observed slurred speech and a staggering gait, and were told by Fields that he had driven and parked the car.
- Fields refused field sobriety tests at the scene and refused a breath test at the Ohio State Highway Patrol post; Trooper Klind also detected alcohol and described Fields as uncooperative.
- Fields was arrested and charged with OVI (Cleveland Codified Ordinance 433.01) and driving without a valid license; the license charge was later dismissed on Crim.R. 29.
- After a bench trial, Fields was convicted of OVI, sentenced (jail suspended) and placed on two years probation; he appealed raising three issues: ineffective assistance for not filing a suppression motion, insufficiency of evidence, and manifest weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress stop, detention, and arrest? | Counsel need not file futile motions; police had reasonable suspicion and then probable cause. | Counsel was ineffective for not challenging the legality of the stop/arrest. | Not ineffective: officers had articulable suspicion and probable cause; suppression motion would not have succeeded. |
| Was the evidence legally sufficient to convict for OVI? | Evidence (odors, gait, slurred speech, admission he drove, refusals) sufficed to show operation while intoxicated. | Insufficient because officers did not observe driving. | Sufficient: admission he drove + evidence of intoxication supports OVI (operation includes non-moving conduct). |
| Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Credible eyewitness observations and defendant’s admissions support conviction. | Conviction against weight because Fields denied drinking. | Not against manifest weight: not an exceptional case; trier of fact did not lose its way. |
| (Procedural) Did trial court err in dismissing license charge on Crim.R. 29? | N/A (prosecution) | N/A (defense) | Not at issue on appeal; judgment affirmed as to OVI. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stops valid on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard explained)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard for evidence)
- State v. Cleary, 22 Ohio St.3d 198 (operation of a vehicle may include non-moving control)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)