State v. Brooks, 2013 Ohio 3505

Appellant Demondray Brooks was convicted by a Richland County jury of multiple felonies and misdemeanors arising from a domestic disturbance call and subsequent police search.
Officers responded to a reported domestic incident at a residence; a man with a handgun appeared, then fled upstairs, creating a dangerous situation inside the home.
During the initial entry, officers observed drugs, drug paraphernalia, a digital scale, and firearms in the home before the resident provided consent to search.
Brooks moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the initial home entry; the trial court denied the motion.
Brooks was convicted on all counts except Count V (receiving stolen property), which the jury could not decide and was dismissed; he was sentenced to a total term of four years and nine months.
On appeal, Brooks argues suppression error, improper allied-offense sentencing, and a void sentence for Count IV.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
suppression standard and ruling	Brooks contends the search was unlawful.	Brooks argues the trial court misapplied suppression standards.	Suppression ruling affirmed; exigent circumstances supported initial entry.
allied-offense merger for trafficking and possession	State contends two counts are distinct offenses.	Brooks argues trafficking and possession are allied offenses of similar import.	Error to convict on both; merger required; remanded for merger review.
clerical/sentencing issue for Count IV	State requests rectification of clerical error post-appeal.	Brooks seeks voiding of Count IV sentence.	Remand for clerical review of Count IV sentence; not declared void.

State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 (Ohio App.3d 1994) (de novo review of suppression questions)
State v. Claytor, 85 Ohio App.3d 623 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (analysis of suppression issues on appeal)
State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (suppression review standards)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause review de novo)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home-entry protection; warrant exceptions)
State v. Akron Airport Post 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 1985) (exigent-circumstances warrantless entry)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (exceptions to warrant requirement)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (merger framework for allied offenses)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (allied offenses and merger analysis)
State v. Goodson, 2011-Ohio-5820 (Ohio 2011) (merger implications for overlapping drugs offenses)
Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1984) (plain-view and search justification principles)
State v. Buzzard, 112 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2007) (exigent circumstances and suppression discussion)