706 N.E.2d 414 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1997
Lead Opinion
Defendant-appellant George Raines appeals from his conviction and sentence for burglary pursuant to R.C.
In this case, a police officer on routine bicycle patrol saw Raines leaning into the driver's-side window of a running parked car in a high-crime neighborhood. He then saw Raines reach down and place something in his shoe. The officer testified that when he was about ten feet from Raines, he told Raines to stop because he needed to talk to him. Instead, Raines fled. The officer told him to stop and that he was under arrest, but Raines kept fleeing. Raines ran into an apartment building, knocked on a door at random, and, when it was answered, pushed or "conned" his way inside. The officer followed him and gained *432
admittance to the apartment. Although no drugs were found, Raines was arrested and ultimately charged with burglary under R.C.
R.C.
The crime of resisting arrest is codified at R.C.
Further, there was no probable cause to arrest Raines established on this record before Raines entered the apartment. The record in this case establishes only that the officer had an articulable suspicion that Raines was engaged in criminal activity. Where articulable suspicion, but not probable cause to arrest exists, fleeing from a request for a Terry -type stop, while not behavior we condone in any way, does not constitute the crime of resisting arrest. State v. Bradley (Mar. 11, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1496, unreported, 1993 WL 69474; State v.McCullough (1990),
Raines's sole assignment of error is sustained. However, we agree that the evidence at trial does support a conviction for the lesser-degree offense of *433
burglary under
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
GORMAN, J., concurs.
HILDEBRANDT, P.J., dissents.
"(4) Trespass in a permanent or temporary habitation of any person when any person is present or likely to be present."
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent because I disagree with my colleagues' holding that the evidence against appellant was insufficient to convict him of burglary under R.C.
A well-established principle of appellate review is that a reviewing court will not reverse the decision of the lower court when that court reached the correct result even though the reasons articulated to support the decision were erroneous.2
This court should uphold the decision of the trial court if the judgment is supported for any lawful reason. I would hold that appellant committed the crime of obstructing official business, R.C.
In this case, the majority concedes that the officer was acting lawfully when he initiated the brief detention associated with aTerry stop. The majority goes on to state that fleeing a Terry
stop does not constitute resisting arrest. Even if that statement is true, it does not follow that fleeing a Terry stop is lawful. On *434
the contrary, such conduct clearly violates the dictates of R.C.
"No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within his official capacity, shall do any act which hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of his lawful duties."
By fleeing from an officer attempting to conduct a lawful Terry
detention, appellant hampered the officer in the performance of his official duties. Appellant then entered a building and forced his way into an apartment to further "prevent, obstruct, or delay" the officer from conducting a permissible detention. The evidence demonstrated that appellant forced his way into the apartment for the purpose of committing a violation of R.C.
Appellant's conviction for burglary was proper, although for reasons other than those articulated by the court below. Because the trial court reached the right result, I would affirm the judgment below.