State v. Guerrero-Sanchez, 2017 Ohio 8185

Indictment charged Guerrero-Sanchez with two counts of aggravated possession of drugs (fentanyl and methamphetamine).
Officers discovered 1,063 grams fentanyl and meth in a Comfort Inn hotel room his occupancy.
Guerrero-Sanchez moved to suppress statements and drug evidence; suppression hearings held June 23, 2016.
Officers conducted a knock-and-talk, obtained consent to search, and found drugs and a scale; no Miranda warnings given before the search.
Guerrero-Sanchez testified his English language ability was limited and that events were coercive; a supplemental suppression hearing followed.
Trial court denied suppression and later sentenced Guerrero-Sanchez to 11 years (count I) and 12 months (count II), to be served concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guerrero-Sanchez’s statements were voluntary and admissible	Guerrero-Sanchez argues language barrier and coercion made statements involuntary	Guerrero-Sanchez asserts lack of understanding and Miranda warnings render statements involuntary	Statements not involuntary; not custodial Miranda issue; voluntary under totality of circumstances
Whether the drug evidence seizure was voluntary consent and admissible	State contends consent given during non-coercive encounter; language barrier not dispositive	Guerrero-Sanchez claims consent was not voluntary due to lack of language comprehension and coercive tactics	Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances; suppression denied; search upheld
Whether the 11-year sentence for fentanyl possession is supported by law	Maximum sentence appropriate given amount and fentanyl’s impact	Record lacks “greatest seriousness” findings to justify maximum term	Maximum term supported by R.C. 2929.12 factors and community impact; sentence affirmed

State v. Prater, 2012-Ohio-5105 (2d Dist.) (suppression standard; credibility of witnesses governs findings)
State v. Lovato, 2014-Ohio-2311 (2d Dist.) (voluntariness of statements; Miranda warnings not always required)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S.) (Miranda warnings required only for custodial interrogation)
State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (2000) (Miranda rights not required for every questioning scenario)
State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (1976) (totality-of-circumstances standard for voluntariness)
State v. Banks-Harvey, 2016-Ohio-4715 (2d Dist.) (coercive police conduct analyzed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Wenzler, 2004-Ohio-1811 (2d Dist.) (custody analysis for Miranda warrants applicability)
State v. Sieng, 2007-Ohio-1502 (10th Dist.) (drug quantity as factor in “other relevant factors” under 2929.12)
State v. Sideris, 2005-Ohio-1055 (4th Dist.) (quantity and harm considered as relevant factors)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016-Ohio-1002) (standard of review for felony sentences; deference to trial court)
State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759 (2d Dist.) (application of Marcum framework)