State v. Tutt
54 N.E.3d 619
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Police conducted two controlled buys of heroin outside 10812 Amor Ave within a week; sellers were seen exiting that address and selling directly to a confidential informant.
- Detective Sauterer obtained a search warrant for Tutt’s residence based on the buys, informant ID, OHLEG records linking suspects to the address, and field testing; police seized drugs, scales, phones, guns, and other items.
- Tutt was re‑indicted on multiple counts (including first‑degree trafficking and possession counts alleging 50–250g, with firearm specifications) and pled no contest to nine counts.
- At the plea hearing the court advised Tutt of sentencing ranges, firearm specifications, postrelease control, and forfeiture, but did not explicitly tell him the base first‑degree drug counts carried mandatory prison terms that made him ineligible for probation/community control.
- Trial court denied Tutt’s suppression motion; Tutt was sentenced to an aggregate six‑year term. He appealed, raising (1) that his pleas to Counts 3 and 4 were not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), and (2) that the search warrant lacked probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tutt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleas to Counts 3 & 4 were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | The court substantially complied by advising maximum penalties, firearm specs, and postrelease control; defendant got < maximum sentence. | Court failed to determine defendant understood the base first‑degree counts carried mandatory prison terms and thus were nonprobationable; pleas should be vacated. | Reversed as to Counts 3 & 4: court wholly failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); pleas vacated and remanded. |
| Whether the affidavit supported probable cause for the search warrant of 10812 Amor Ave | Affidavit recited two recent controlled buys from persons exiting the house, informant ID, OHLEG links, and presumptive field test — sufficient nexus to the residence. | Affidavit was conclusory and failed to show the sellers actually resided at the address, so no nexus to justify searching the house. | Affirmed denial of suppression: issuing judge had a substantial basis for probable cause; surveillance of sellers leaving/returning to the house provided adequate nexus. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes strict v. substantial compliance under Crim.R. 11 and requires totality analysis)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (defines substantial compliance and subjective understanding standard)
- State v. George, 544 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio 1989) (probable cause standard for search warrants follows Gates; practical common‑sense test)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for informant tips/probable cause)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1965) (warrant affidavits interpreted in a commonsense, realistic fashion)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (plea vacated where court wholly failed to advise mandatory postrelease control)