2019 Ohio 4035
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Adam M. Devore was indicted for rape, abduction, and domestic violence; acquitted of rape but convicted of abduction and domestic violence.
- Trial court sentenced Devore to consecutive 36-month terms (72 months aggregate).
- In the sentencing entry the trial court granted Devore’s motion for return of a seized cell phone that had been used in the State’s prosecution.
- Devore’s appeals and App. R. 26(B) reopening were denied; he later moved to enforce the prior order and obtain return of the phone while an Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional application was pending.
- The trial court denied Devore’s motion for return of the phone on May 7, 2019; the State conceded on appeal that the phone was no longer needed as evidence and had no lawful purpose to retain.
- The Fifth District reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying enforcement of the prior order returning the seized cell phone (R.C. 2981.11) | State conceded the phone is no longer needed as evidence and asked for remand for return | Devore argued the court abused its discretion by denying enforcement of the prior order | Sustained — remanded for further proceedings; Devore entitled to return per State concession |
| Whether there was a Brady violation for suppression of text messages on the phone | State: Brady governs prosecutorial conduct and is not properly before this appeal about return of property | Devore asserted a due process violation under Brady for suppression of favorable texts | Overruled — court noted Brady applies to prosecutors and the issue was not before it on this appeal |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reverse a final, appealable order concerning return of property | State argued the issue was moot given its concession on return | Devore argued the trial court had no jurisdiction to reverse its earlier order and therefore must enforce it | Overruled as moot in light of State’s concession; disposition follows first assignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process)