State v. Deacey
2017 Ohio 8102
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shortly after midnight on Aug. 10, 2016, Kettering Officer Brent Wright stopped Thomas Deacey for a vehicle stopped past the stop bar; Deacey parked in a business lot and refused to produce ID or his license.
- Officer arrested Deacey for obstruction after repeated refusals; a search located a military ID; LEADS/BMV check showed Deacey’s license was expired.
- Deacey was charged with obstruction (dismissed before trial), expired license and stop-bar violation (amended ordinance number), and illegal plates (dismissed).
- Deacey proceeded pro se for portions of the case, filed multiple motions including suppression and speedy-trial challenges; trial court overruled suppression, dismissed obstruction, and convicted Deacey at bench trial of expired license and stop-bar violation.
- Sentenced to $150 plus costs; Deacey appealed pro se raising amendment, hearsay/admission of BMV records, suppression/arrest legality, speedy trial, return of property, and jury-trial claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Deacey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether amendment of cited ordinance (432.17 → 414.03) violated Crim.R. 7(D) | Amendment corrected ordinance number and did not change the charged offense (stop-bar violation) | Amendment changed identity/name of offense and was reversible error | Amendment permissible; did not change identity; no prejudice; affirmed |
| 2. Admissibility of BMV/LEADS records (hearsay issue) | Certified BMV record is self‑authenticating under R.C. and Evid.R.; LEADS check corroborated expiration | State failed to produce source and witness lacked firsthand preparation knowledge; hearsay | Admission proper: certified BMV is self‑authenticating; even non‑certified BMV/LEADS can be prima facie under R.C. 4510.12(B) |
| 3. Suppression: were stop and arrest unreasonable? | Officer reasonably suspected stop-bar violation; even if law was ambiguous, Heien permits reasonable mistakes of law; refusal to identify justified arrest under R.C. 2935.26(A)(2) | Officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion; stop was for a minimal violation; arrest and Miranda failures rendered evidence inadmissible | Stop and arrest lawful: officer’s reasonable belief (even if mistaken) justified stop; refusal to identify justified arrest; Miranda claim waived/not outcome‑determinative |
| 4. Speedy trial (motion to discharge) | Various defense filings and delays tolled speedy‑trial time (waiver by counsel, motions, discovery lapses, suppression hearing tolled time) | Trial exceeded statutory speedy‑trial limits (claimed 90 → 30 days) and entitles discharge | No speedy‑trial violation: tolling applied (waivers, defendant motions, discovery/neglect, suppression hearing); time limits met |
| 5. Return of property / forfeiture | No forfeiture specification in charging papers; no judicial forfeiture ordered | State failed to follow forfeiture procedure; property should be returned | Trial court properly denied vague day‑of‑trial motion; no forfeiture proceedings had been initiated |
| 6. Right to jury trial | Remaining offenses were minor misdemeanors (no jury right) after higher charges were dismissed | Deacey argued constitutional/inviolable jury right and statutes allow jury in any trial | No right to jury: only minor misdemeanors remained, so bench trial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable mistakes of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (traffic stop valid with reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression: factual findings binding; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (trial court has discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- Cleveland Hts. v. Perryman, 8 Ohio App.3d 443 (Ohio App. 1983) (apply Crim.R. 7(D) to amend traffic tickets)
- State v. Jackson, 78 Ohio App.3d 479 (Ohio App. 1992) (unconsented amendment that changes name/identity is reversible error)
- State v. Gasnik, 132 Ohio App.3d 612 (Ohio App. 1998) (speedy‑trial period for original higher charge governs when charges later reduced)
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio 2012) (forfeiture proceedings require separate judicial findings; conviction entry need not include forfeiture)