State v. Wesley, 2017 Ohio 799

Background

Police observed Wesley, who had an outstanding warrant, on Sept. 15; a high-speed vehicle pursuit followed and Wesley fled on foot; police later found a loaded 9mm Ruger in the abandoned car with Wesley's DNA on the grip.
Wesley was indicted for multiple counts arising from the Sept. 15 incident (weapons while under disability, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, failure to comply); some duplicative counts were later dismissed.
On Sept. 22, after executing an arrest warrant at his girlfriend Jonaka Wallace’s residence, officers obtained Wallace’s verbal consent to search and discovered a Taurus pistol and items linking Wesley to the home; Wesley pleaded no contest to the weapons-under-disability count based on that search.
Wesley moved to suppress the evidence from the Sept. 22 search, arguing it lacked a valid warrant or voluntary consent; the trial court denied suppression after crediting the U.S. Marshal’s testimony that Wallace consented.
At trial (Sept. 15 charges) a jury convicted Wesley of weapons under disability, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and failure to comply; the court denied a request to merge the weapons and improper-handling convictions and imposed consecutive sentences totaling 9.5 years.
Wesley appealed, claiming (1) suppression should have been granted, (2) the convictions should have merged, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective; the appellate court affirmed on all issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence from Sept. 22 search (consent)	State: Wallace gave clear, voluntary consent to search; consent exception to warrant applies	Wesley: Search was without a warrant and without valid consent; suppression required	Court: Trial court credited officer; State met clear-and-positive-evidence standard; denial of suppression affirmed
Merger of weapons-under-disability and improper-handling convictions	State: offenses involved distinct conduct/times and separate animus, so convictions may stand separately	Wesley: Offenses arise from the same act/transaction and should merge under R.C. 2941.25 and Double Jeopardy	Court: Applied Ruff framework; offenses involved different conduct and timing (possession v. transport), so no merger
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to raise merger)	State: Counsel did raise merger at sentencing; also merger claim lacks merit so no prejudice	Wesley: Counsel failed to preserve/adequately press merger at sentencing	Court: Record shows counsel argued merger; even if raised, merger was meritless, so no Strickland prejudice
Standard of appellate review on suppression and merger	State: Trial court credibility findings should be upheld; legal conclusions reviewed de novo	Wesley: (implicit) appellate court should reverse based on incorrect legal application	Court: Affirmed mixed-review rule—factual findings for credibility affirmed if supported; legal issues reviewed independently; applied those standards and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (appellate review of suppression is mixed question of law and fact)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent searches require voluntary consent under totality of circumstances)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (state must show consent was freely given; burden of proof on prosecution)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 34 N.E.3d 892 (2015) (three-part allied-offenses analysis focusing on conduct, import, and animus)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 983 N.E.2d 1245 (2012) (standards for appellate review of merger issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (Strickland standard adopted in Ohio)
State v. Ingram, 82 Ohio App.3d 341, 612 N.E.2d 454 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence compared to clear-and-positive standard for consent)