State v. Gomez, 2014 Ohio 3535

Officers responded to a Motel 6 complaint and encountered Gomez in room 245.
Gomez gave verbal consent to enter the room and to a pat-down; during the pat-down, a search of a pocket occurred.
Consent to search Gomez’s pocket was obtained; heroin, Xanax and other items were found.
Gomez was charged with multiple drug- and record-related offenses stemming from the search.
Gomez moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court did not explicitly rule on the motion before the change of plea.
The appellate court reversal rests on the absence of trial court findings of fact and denial of the suppression motion, requiring remand for factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of the suppression motion violated the Fourth Amendment.	Gomez argues the search was unlawful without valid consent.	State contends consent and/or exigent circumstances justified the search.	Suppression motion granted on remand; trial court needed findings of fact.

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (mixed question of law and fact standard for suppression)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate review of suppression is de novo after factual finding)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (de novo review of legal conclusions on suppression necessity)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (Burnside framework for reviewing suppression rulings)
State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (2012) (Burnside applied to mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Conley, 2009-Ohio-910 (2009) (requires factual findings to review credibility and sufficiency)