State v. Keith
2016 Ohio 3056
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Davonne Keith pleaded no contest/guilty in three Cuyahoga County indictments charging trafficking and possession of cocaine and heroin (some first-degree with schoolyard specifications; others fifth-degree) with forfeiture specifications.
- Police in an unmarked car observed Keith drive slowly, pull into a vacant lot known for drug activity, accept a passenger, and roll something in white paper; officers approached in a takedown vehicle and ordered him out.
- Officers observed a scale with brown residue in plain view in the car; Keith hid something, was handcuffed, searched, and found cocaine and heroin on his person.
- Trial court denied Keith’s motion to suppress evidence and denied his motion to strike the schoolyard specifications; Keith later received aggregate consecutive sentences totaling 27 years.
- At sentencing the court allowed counsel and a detective to speak but did not address Keith personally or ask if he wished to allocute; Keith preserved assignments challenging suppression, seizure, schoolyard specification, and denial of allocution.
- The appellate court affirmed denial of the suppression and schoolyard-specification challenges but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to afford Keith his absolute right of allocution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress: was stop/seizure and subsequent search lawful? | Officers had reasonable suspicion from slow driving in high-crime area, entry into vacant lot, passenger contact, and observed rolling of paper; plain view of scale supported probable cause. | Stop was based on a hunch; blocking the vehicle and show of force made the encounter an unlawful seizure absent probable cause. | Denied suppression: totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion; plain view and observations supplied probable cause. |
| Whether police conduct constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment | Seizure was lawful because it was supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause and aimed at investigating suspected drug activity. | Blocking the car, multiple officers, drawn weapon, and commands constituted a seizure; defendant was not free to leave. | A seizure occurred but was lawful given the officers’ reasonable suspicion/probable cause. |
| Motion to strike schoolyard specification (equal protection/fairness) | Schoolyard specification is a sentencing enhancement rationally related to public protection and applies when offenses occur within 1,000 feet of a school; it need not be struck. | Specification is arbitrary/capricious when added to trafficking counts but not to possession counts for the same conduct, producing disparate punishment. | Denied motion: specification is an enhancement within a rational, graduated penalty scheme and did not violate equal protection. |
| Right to allocution at sentencing | Court satisfied sentencing procedures by hearing counsel and witnesses; no waiver by defendant. | Defendant was not addressed personally and thus was denied the absolute, nonwaivable right to allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1). | Granted: failure to ask defendant to allocute was reversible error; sentences vacated and case remanded for resentencing with opportunity for allocution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standard for investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (defines when a person is "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82 (plain view doctrine requirements)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (Crim.R. 32(A)(1) confers absolute right to allocution)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (2011) (distinguishing penal statutes from sentencing specifications)