State v. Bingham, 2019 Ohio 3324

Police investigated 419 S. Collett (owned by Bingham) for drug trafficking after multiple citizen reports and surveillance in Feb–Mar 2016.
A controlled buy of marijuana occurred on March 30, 2016 via a confidential informant; officers then obtained and executed a search warrant on April 1, 2016, seizing marijuana, crack cocaine, a firearm, and drug-manufacturing materials.
Bingham was indicted on possession of cocaine (1st-degree), illegal manufacture of drugs (2nd-degree), having weapons while under disability (3rd-degree), and possession of marijuana (5th-degree).
Bingham filed multiple suppression motions (three), arguing the warrant affidavit contained false statements/omissions; the trial court denied each motion after evidentiary hearings.
Bingham pled no contest to the charges under a plea agreement, later moved pre-sentencing to withdraw his pleas claiming inability to subpoena a defense witness (Calhoun) and issues with a defense investigator, but the trial court denied withdrawal and sentenced him to an aggregate 12 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bingham)	Held
1. Validity of indictment because grand jury had 9 members under Crim.R. 6(A)	Crim.R. 6(A)’s 9-member grand jury is controlling and valid	R.C. 2939.02 requires 15 grand jurors; Crim.R. 6(A) is unconstitutional and indictment must be dismissed	Court upheld Crim.R. 6(A); 9-member grand jury lawful; assignment overruled
2. Suppression: whether warrant affidavit contained material falsehoods/omissions destroying probable cause	Affidavit supported probable cause even removing misstated reference to Bingham; corroborating tips and controlled buy tied criminal activity to the residence	Affidavit falsely identified Bingham as the seller in the controlled buy (it was Pea) and omitted that fact; controlled buy may not have occurred; warrant invalid	Court found some statements naming Bingham were false but not necessary to probable cause; magistrate had substantial basis to issue warrant; suppression denied
3. Motion to withdraw no contest plea pre-sentencing	Plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant’s reasons (failure to subpoena Calhoun, issues with investigator) lacked credibility and did not show reasonable legitimate basis for withdrawal	Plea induced by inability to subpoena defense witness Calhoun and by misconduct of private investigator (who was a deputy)	Court applied Xie factors, found most factors against Bingham, credibility problems with his reasons, denied withdrawal; no abuse of discretion

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported; de novo review of legal conclusions)
State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (magistrate’s task is practical, common-sense probable-cause determination under Gates)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in informant cases)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant must make substantial preliminary showing of deliberate falsehood/reckless disregard to require hearing and redaction)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (reckless disregard defined; omissions treated like false statements if intended to mislead)
State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (1980) (defendant must support Franks allegations with offer of proof/affidavits)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule and good-faith exception principles)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standards and factors for presentence plea-withdrawal motions)