State v. Mays
2011 Ohio 2684
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Detective O’Connell obtained a search warrant for Tavion Mays’ apartment based on an affidavit incorporating information from Donovan Hirst (neighbor) asserting Mays possessed firearms and that Mays told Hirst to hide three guns in the apartment.
- The warrant led to the seizure of a handgun and ammunition found in an air vent.
- Mays was indicted for having a weapon while under disability and later pleaded no contest to that charge.
- The trial court overruled Mays’ suppression motion, and he was convicted and sentenced to three years, to be served consecutive to other probation revocations for a nine-year total.
- Mays appeals, asserting the warrant lacked probable cause due to stale information and improper consideration of extrinsic statements not in the four corners of the affidavit, plus a separate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The appellate court concludes the information was not stale, the magistrate properly relied on the four corners of the affidavit (with harmless consideration of extrinsic statements), and finds no ineffective assistance of counsel that warrants reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause given stale information? | Mays argues information in the affidavit was stale. | Mays contends the information baring the warrant was stale and insufficient for probable cause. | No; information was timely and connected to ongoing firearm possession. |
| Did the judge properly confine consideration to the four corners of the affidavit? | Mays argues extrinsic statements not in the affidavit were improperly considered. | Mays argues extrinsic statements were relied upon by the judge. | Yes; four-corners analysis supported by record and case law. |
| Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance regarding suppression issues? | Mays claims counsel failed to raise stale information and object to extrinsic testimony, and cross-examining tactics bolstered the informant. | Counsel acted reasonably; cross-examination tactics were strategic. | No; performance was reasonable and not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Purser, Greene App. No. 2006 CA 14, 2007-Ohio-192 (2007-Ohio) (appellate deference to trial-court factual findings in suppression)
- State v. Robinson, State v. Robinson, Montgomery App. No. 20458, 2004-Ohio-5281 (2004-Ohio) (probable cause standard for warrants; Gates framework)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause as a practical, common-sense decision)
- State v. George, (1989) 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (probable cause standard; realistic nexus between place and evidence)
- State v. Freeman, State v. Freeman, Highland App. No. 06CA3, 2006-Ohio-5020 (2006-Ohio) (nexus and ongoing nature of crime relevant to probable cause)
- State v. Kirby, State v. Kirby, (Sept. 27, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14971 (1995-Ohio) (enduring quality of items and disposal considerations for stale information)
- State v. Ingold, State v. Ingold, Franklin App. No. 07AP-648, 2008-Ohio-2303 (2008-Ohio) (factors for staleness: crime type, item perishability, location, single-incident)
- State v. O’Connor, State v. O’Connor, Butler App. No. CA2001-08-195, 2002-Ohio-4122 (2002-Ohio) (Crim. R. 41(C) limiting consideration to four corners; testimony admissible if incorporated)