2018 Ohio 2877
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 11, 2017 law enforcement stopped a rented Kia for traffic violations; officers smelled marijuana and found marijuana in the car and a mismatched spare tire with a cut flap; methamphetamine residue was later identified in the tire.
- Hotel receipts and key cards tied the vehicle to Rember Moscoso; detectives went to Moscoso’s hotel room (room 210), were invited in, and both occupants consented to a search and additional questioning.
- While officers were in the room gathering belongings and waiting for a CODE detective, they discovered ~12.2 pounds of methamphetamine in a duffel and a styrofoam cup that tested as methamphetamine.
- Moscoso pled no-contest to possession and trafficking (first-degree felonies) with specifications; a stipulated bench trial resulted in conviction for operating/possessing a vehicle with a hidden compartment (second-degree felony).
- The trial court denied Moscoso’s motion to suppress, found consent to the hotel-room search voluntary and not revoked, and admitted the seized evidence; Moscoso was sentenced to an aggregate 15-year term, a $10,000 mandatory fine, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying the motion to suppress | State: Consent to the hotel-room search was voluntary; evidence found during consensual gathering was admissible | Moscoso: Consent was coerced/only submission to police authority and search exceeded consent | Court: Consent was voluntary, not revoked, and scope included gathering belongings; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for hidden-compartment conviction | State: Tire with purposeful cut and meth residue constituted a hidden compartment knowingly used to transport drugs | Moscoso: Insufficient evidence to prove a hidden compartment or knowledge | Court: Evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor supports conviction under R.C. 2923.241(C) |
| Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported | State: Consecutive terms necessary to punish/protect public; offenses part of same course producing great/unusual harm; defendant’s criminal history and large drug quantity support findings | Moscoso: Record does not support statutory findings for consecutive terms | Court: Trial court made required findings at sentencing; record supports consecutive 11- and 4-year terms totaling 15 years |
| Whether fine and costs were improperly imposed given indigency | State: Court considered Moscoso’s admitted drug income and denied indigency; statutory duty to impose costs | Moscoso: Trial court failed to consider indigency and should waive fine/costs | Court: Trial court considered ability to pay (defendant admitted high income); fine not an abuse of discretion; costs properly imposed under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 25 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1986) (consent waives Fourth Amendment protection; voluntariness judged under totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent to search need not be knowing and intelligent; voluntariness assessed from totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (standards for seizure and consent analysis)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable suspicion/probable cause reviewed de novo)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 1997) (voluntary consent may validate warrantless search)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the record)