State v. Roberson
2012 Ohio 1237
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- State of Ohio accused Roberson of Receiving Stolen Property after firearm found during police search of apartment rented by alleged victim Ms. Austin.
- Officers entered the apartment with consent, drew weapons, and encountered Roberson in a bathroom; gun allegedly involved in domestic dispute.
- Bag(s) belonging to Roberson were in the living area; Colt .380 reportedly stolen was found wrapped in underwear inside a suitcase.
- Police searched the bags for a weapon and found the gun; Roberson wasMirandized later at the station and gave a statement.
- Roberson moved to suppress the bag search; the trial court denied the motion; defense pursued appellate review under Anders v. California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bag search was permissible absent a warrant given exigent circumstances | State argues exigent circumstances justified searching bags to prevent arming. | Roberson contends no exigent circumstances after consent and securing the bag. | Not wholly frivolous; court did not resolve merits; Anders brief rejected and new counsel ordered. |
| Whether Roberson’s appeal under Anders v. California can proceed without meritorious issues | State did not rely on meritorious issues; focus on potential issues. | Roberson argues there are arguable issues; Anders requires briefing and potential arguments. | Anders brief rejected; new appellate counsel will be assigned and must file a proper brief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (no-merit procedure; counsel must brief any arguable issues or withdraw)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (required warnings; custodial interrogation protections)