State v. WoodsState v. Woods
J. Roger Smith, II, Huntington, West Virginia, for appellant.
Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecutor, and C. Michael Gleichauf, Lawrence County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Ironton, Ohio, for appellee.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Lawrence County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. Vanessa Woods, defendant below and appellant herein, appeals her conviction for (1) aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of
{¶ 2} Appellant raises the following assignment of error for review:
“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND OTHERWISE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS STANDARD OR A MISCONSTRUCTION OF LAW IN DENYING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HER AS THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT‘S VEHICLE WAS
DONE IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS HER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
{¶ 3} On November 1, 2017, the Lawrence County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with (1) on one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of
{¶ 4} Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence and argued the stop and search of her vehicle violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
{¶ 5} On January 26, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. South Point Police Patrolman Robert Fouch testified that he and his partner, Patrolman Jordan Reyes, stopped appellant at 1:12 a.m. on September 19, 2017. Fouch testified that he followed appellant over railroad tracks, and observed her stop at a stop sign, then activate her turn signal. Fouch stated that appellant failed to activate her turn signal one hundred feet prior to her turn, in violation of
{¶ 6} Officer Fouch explained that when appellant gave consent to search, he also asked if any weapons were in the vehicle. Fouch asked appellant to step out of the car, patted her down and noted no weapons on her person. Fouch stated that he then took appellant to the front of her vehicle and told her that if she saw them searching an area of the vehicle that she did not give consent to search, she should tap on the vehicle‘s hood and inform them that she wanted to “take consent away.” Fouch testified that appellant was not under arrest at that time. During the search, appellant did not tell officers to stop the search. Inside the vehicle, officers found 32 grams of methamphetamine.
{¶ 7} At the hearing, the state played footage from Officer Reyes‘s body camera.1 When questioned by the court, Officer Fouch admitted that if appellant had told him no the second time when he sought consent, he “would have called for the K-9 Unit.” The trial court inquired how long he would have waited for the K-9 and Officer Fouch responded, “[a]s long as it takes me to write the citation.”
{¶ 8} On February 2, 2018, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and found the stop
{¶ 9} In her assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to suppress evidence constitutes an “abuse of discretion.” In particular, appellant argues the search of her vehicle violated due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as her due process rights under the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 10} The state, however, first challenges appellant‘s right to appeal this matter based on
{¶ 11} Appellant argues, however, that she does not challenge her sentence, but rather is
{¶ 12} Although
{¶ 13} “Generally, a guilty plea waives all appealable errors that may have occurred in the trial
{¶ 14} Like Lee and Johnson, appellant does not argue here that her plea was involuntarily. Thus, by pleading guilty she has waived her argument concerning the motion to suppress evidence.
{¶ 15} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant‘s assignment of error and affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that appellee recover of appellant the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail has been previously granted by the trial court or this court, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the appellant fo file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hoover, P.J. & McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion
For the Court
BY: ______________________________
Peter B. Abele, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.