State v. Allen
2012 Ohio 249
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Allen was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and rape, each with firearm specifications.
- A supplemental indictment added additional counts of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated menacing; Allen pleaded not guilty to all charges.
- Before trial, Allen moved to suppress statements and evidence and to sever counts; the trial court denied these motions.
- During trial, the State dismissed some charges; the jury found Allen guilty of most remaining charges and acquitted on others.
- Allen was classified as a Tier III sex offender and sentenced to a 46-year aggregate term; he appealed the convictions and sentence.
- The appellate court affirmed, addressing four assignments of error raised by Allen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to suppress statements was properly denied | Allen argued Miranda rights were not read prior to questioning and statements were involuntary. | State contends Miranda warnings were given and statements were voluntary under the totality of circumstances. | No error; statements were voluntary and properly admitted. |
| Whether the motion to sever counts was properly denied | Allen argued prejudice from joinder; sought severance under Crim.R. 14 (and Crim.R. 8 role). | State contends joinder was proper and did not prejudice Allen. | Severance denied; joinder upheld. |
| Whether the search warrant was defective for lack of probable cause or description of property | Allen contends warrant was vague and affiant's information unreliable. | State argues warrant properly described location and items; affidavit credible under totality of the circumstances. | Warrant supported by probable cause; not defective. |
| Whether the sentencing court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences | Allen claims improper findings for maximum/consecutive sentences. | State cites Foster and Hodge allowing discretionary sentencing within ranges without findings. | No error; sentences within statutory ranges and properly imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swan, 9th Dist. No. 22939, 2006-Ohio-2692 (9th Dist. 2006) (standard for suppression mixed questions of law and fact)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (due process voluntariness of confessions; Miranda waiver standard)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (biographical/booking-type questions admissible; Miranda-related limits)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- George v. State, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio Supreme Court 1989) (probable cause review deference to issuing judge)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (no mandatory findings for maximum/consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (consecutive sentences discretionary; no additional judicial fact-finding required)
- Whitely v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1971) (probable cause for warrants; basis for warrants based on probable cause)
- Gunner, 2008-Ohio-4942 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (Crim.R. 8 vs Crim.R. 14 severance distinctions)