State v. Martre, 2022 Ohio 639

In 2017 Martre was indicted for domestic violence; police obtained his cell phone via search warrant and seized videos/images that related to separate sexual-offense conduct prosecuted in Allen County.
Martre pleaded guilty (Alford plea) in the Lucas County case and later challenged the seizure/search; the Sixth District previously affirmed the warrant and search as lawful in a consolidated 2020 appeal.
Martre filed multiple postconviction and discovery motions seeking the search warrant and return of the phone and memory card; those motions were denied by the trial court and some appellate efforts were dismissed or consolidated.
The State opposed return under R.C. 2981.11/2981.13, asserting the phone contained child sexual images used to secure Allen County convictions (gross sexual imposition; illegal use of a minor) and that deletion would not reliably prevent file recovery.
After a hearing the Lucas County trial court denied Martre’s R.C. 2981.03(A)(4) motion for return of property, ruled the devices were contraband subject to destruction, and this Court affirmed on appeal, applying the law-of-the-case and presuming the trial-court factual findings due to the absent transcript.

Issue	Martre's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the R.C. 2981.03(A)(4) motion should be treated as a post‑sentence motion to suppress	The motion sought suppression/return based on unlawful seizure/search and therefore warranted reconsideration	Prior appellate ruling already found the warrant and search lawful; law of the case bars relitigation	Court declined to revisit warrant legality; did not treat it as a basis to relitigate suppression after prior appellate ruling
Whether the trial court was required to make an independent determination of the warrant’s legality	Trial court must independently address warrant legality when deciding return	Appellate decision on same warrant controls; trial court bound by law of the case	Court followed prior appellate decision that the warrant/search were lawful and did not re-decide legality
Whether the court could return the phone but destroy contraband files (i.e., return device after deleting images)	Device should be returned if files can be removed; deletion suffices to preserve owner’s interest	Device is contraband because it contains child sexual images and deleted files can often be recovered; statute requires destruction of obscene materials	Court found competent evidence supported treating the device as contraband, denial of return was proper, and destruction was authorized; appellate court affirmed

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (plea may be entered while maintaining claim of innocence under certain circumstances)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine; appellate decisions ordinarily control subsequent proceedings in same case)
Crane v. Perry Cty. Bd. of Elections, 107 Ohio St.3d 287 (2005) (when necessary transcript portions are omitted, reviewing court must presume regularity and affirm)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (same principle re: missing transcript; presumption of validity)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commissioners, 120 Ohio St.3d 372 (2008) (computers/hard drives containing child pornography may be destroyed to prevent file recovery)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (appellate review standard: factual findings will not be reversed if supported by competent, credible evidence)