State v. Wilson, 108 N.E.3d 517

Background

On April 17, 2015, a man handed a teller at Buckeye Credit Union a typed note saying he had a "loaded gun" and directing her to place cash on the counter; $1,972 was taken. Deputies broadcast a BOLO with suspect and vehicle description.
Deputy Leonello and Officer Krejsa observed a small tan pickup (Ford Ranger) on I-90 matching the broadcast; they followed and then stopped the truck after confirming the vehicle description.
Officers detained appellant, saw cash (bait money) and a jacket with $50 bills in plain view, and later recovered the robbery note and other incriminating items during inventory.
Appellant moved to suppress the stop; the trial court denied the motion. He then pled no contest to robbery (Count 2) and an RVO specification, was found guilty, and was sentenced to 8 years for robbery plus 2 years for the RVO specification (consecutive), totaling 10 years.
On appeal appellant challenged the suppression denial (lack of reasonable suspicion), the RVO enhancement (insufficient record support / Apprendi violation), and imposition of the maximum robbery term. The majority affirmed; one judge concurred in part and dissented in part as to the RVO enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Wilson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment (reasonable suspicion)	Leonello lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Wilson	BOLO broadcast, matching vehicle, race, clothing, last-known direction and officer experience provided reasonable suspicion	Stop was reasonable; suppression denial affirmed
Whether the record supported the RVO enhancement (threat of serious physical harm)	Record did not support required finding that current offense involved threat of serious physical harm; appellant did not admit that element	Appellant pled no contest and admitted the prosecutor's factual statement (including the note stating a loaded gun and threats), supporting the RVO finding	Trial court's finding supported by plea/stipulation; RVO enhancement affirmed
Whether judicial factfinding on the RVO element violated Apprendi / Sixth Amendment	Court impermissibly made a factual finding (serious physical harm) that a jury did not find and appellant did not admit	Appellant waived jury rights by pleading no contest and admitted the prosecutor's facts; judicial finding was permissible	Majority: no plain error; appellant waived jury and admitted facts; enhancement valid; Dissent: disagrees, views finding as unadmitted and constitutionally required to be found by a jury
Whether the maximum 8-year robbery sentence was contrary to law	If RVO finding invalid, the maximum robbery sentence should be vacated	R.C. requires longest term when RVO enhancement imposed; trial court considered statutory factors; sentence not contrary to law	Maximum sentence affirmed (RVO finding upheld so required maximum valid)

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury unless exception applies)
State v. Hunter, 123 Ohio St.3d 164 (defendant may waive jury and stipulate facts necessary for RVO designation)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582 (no-contest plea admits truth of indictment allegations and supports finding of guilt)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)