Background - Sean Rieves was indicted on multiple drug-trafficking, possession, weapons-under-disability, and criminal-tools counts with firearm and forfeiture specifications; his wife faced related charges. - The State offered a package plea (reduced counts and specifications; wife would receive probation) but told Rieves the offer would be withdrawn if he pursued suppression; Rieves rejected it and moved to suppress. - Police obtained a warrant after an affidavit described two anonymous tips identifying Rieves as a heroin seller and a contemporaneous trash pull from the curb of his Maple Heights residence that produced 11 plastic "tear-offs" (two with residue) and mail addressed to Rieves and a prescription receipt for his wife. - The trial court denied the suppression motion; Rieves then pleaded no contest while preserving the suppression issue and was sentenced to an aggregate 12-year prison term (including consecutive one-year firearm specifications) plus fines, forfeiture, and postrelease control. - Rieves appealed raising six assignments of error; the court consolidated and addressed the principal disputes concerning probable cause for the warrant, Crim.R. 11 advisals/effect of a no-contest plea, an alleged promised (agreed) eight-year sentence and refusal to allow plea withdrawal, and sentencing on facts not in the indictment. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rieves) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Probable cause for search warrant (motion to suppress) | Affidavit (anonymous tips + trash pull showing tear-offs, residue, mail) provided sufficient corroboration and probable cause | Trash-pull alone is insufficient; anonymous tips were "bare bones" and stale, so warrant lacked probable cause | Warrant supported: totality (tips + corroborating trash evidence + defendant identifiers) gave magistrate a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression denied | | Effect-of-plea advisals (Crim.R. 11) for no-contest plea | Court substantially complied; failure to state effect of no-contest is presumed non-prejudicial absent claim of actual innocence | Trial court failed to explain that no-contest is admission of facts; plea should be vacated | No prejudice shown and Rieves did not assert actual innocence; failure to advise on effect did not invalidate plea | | Purported agreed sentence and withdrawal of plea | No formal, binding agreement on an eight-year sentence existed; statements were ‘‘potential’’ or "discussions" and any promise was not from the State; court not bound | Court promised an eight-year sentence and, after Rieves spoke at sentencing, imposed a higher term and refused plea withdrawal | No enforceable agreed sentence; Rieves expressly denied additional promises at plea colloquy; plea withdrawal denied under Crim.R. 32.1 (no manifest injustice) | | Sentencing on extra-record facts / self-incrimination at sentencing | Court relied on admitted facts, trash search results, and criminal history; no Sixth Amendment violation; no agreed sentence existed so no basis to warn defendant about speaking | Court impermissibly relied on facts not alleged in indictment or admitted at plea and failed to warn defendant he could incriminate himself by speaking at sentencing | Court’s comments were based on admitted plea facts, search results, and record; no Sixth Amendment error or self-incrimination violation found | ### Key Cases Cited California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (garbage left for collection carries no reasonable expectation of privacy) Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause from informants) Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (requirements for challenging a warrant affidavit for false statements) State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (appellate standard: magistrate must have a substantial basis for probable cause) State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (failure to advise effect of plea is presumed non-prejudicial absent claim of actual innocence) State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional advisals) * United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243 (trash-pull evidence alone may be insufficient when other affidavit assertions are invalidated)