State v. Rolf
2021 Ohio 2475
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On June 3, 2019 Trooper Jordan Daniel stopped Todd Rolf after observing multiple left‑of‑center lane violations, erratic braking and weaving; Trooper detected alcohol odor and signs of impairment.
- During the stop Troopers found a styrofoam cup with a crystalline substance and, after an inventory search of the vehicle, discovered additional crystalline material and a glass pipe; substance tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Rolf was indicted on aggravated possession (2nd‑degree felony), two OVI counts (third‑degree felonies, later merged) and driving under OVI suspension (1st‑degree misdemeanor). Rolf moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
- New counsel later filed a second suppression motion outside the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline; the trial court denied it as repetitive. Rolf entered no‑contest pleas and was found guilty.
- The court sentenced Rolf to consecutive prison terms on Counts 1 and 2, and ordered a driver’s license suspension (the entry specified a lifetime suspension though the length was not stated at the sentencing hearing).
- On appeal the court: (1) affirmed denial of the second suppression motion (no abuse of discretion), (2) vacated the sentence and remanded because the court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the hearing, and (3) vacated the license‑suspension portion of the judgment and remanded because the suspension length was not specified at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rolf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated due process by refusing to consider the second motion to suppress | The second motion was untimely and duplicative of issues already litigated; denial was within the court's discretion | New motion raised issues not argued earlier; denial prevented Rolf from being heard | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion—motion was filed out of rule and issues had been addressed at the earlier hearing |
| Whether the court erred by failing to make statutory findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Sentencing was proper | Court failed to make required findings on the record at the sentencing hearing | Reversed in part: vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing with the required findings made on the record |
| Whether the court erred by imposing a driver’s license suspension without specifying its length at sentencing | The judgment entry controls | Court violated Crim.R. 43(A) and failed to inform Rolf of suspension length at sentencing | Vacated the license‑suspension portion of the judgment and remanded for resentencing where suspension length must be stated on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- 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 entry)
- State v. Dubose, 164 Ohio App.3d 698 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (an overruling of a motion to suppress is interlocutory until final judgment)
- State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 2004) (appellate court may affirm a correct judgment even if reached for the wrong reason)
- Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine, 144 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1944) (appellate courts review judgments, not the underlying reasons)
- State v. Karns, 80 Ohio App.3d 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (denial of an untimely motion to suppress reviewed for abuse of discretion)