 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Martin3/10/2003
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
. This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan Martin, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Court No. 4, which found him guilty of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him accordingly, specifically challenging the trial court's decision denying his motion to suppress. We conclude the officer had probable cause for the arrest. As Martin told the officer he had been driving the car, competent, credible evidence supported a conclusion that the Martin drove the car soon before the officer arrived on the scene of the accident, and Martin displayed several indicia of being under the influence of alcohol when the officer arrived at the scene. Thus, the trial court's decision is affirmed.
. At 6:10 A.M. on August 15, 2000, an Ohio State Trooper received a call from her dispatcher about a car being off the road on State Road 46 just south of Kirk Road in Austintown, Ohio. The trooper arrived at the scene at 6:25 A.M. and found the vehicle in a ditch facing south on the eastside of the road. There were no marks on the road, the tracks in the mud looked fresh, and no one was in the vehicle. She then saw Martin walking northbound about 500 feet away from the vehicle.
. The trooper approached Martin, saw he had wet and muddy shoes and socks, and began questioning him. Martin told the trooper the accident had occurred between 4:30 and 5:00 in the morning. After talking with Martin, the trooper had him perform standard field sobriety tests, which he performed poorly, and administered a portable breath test. The trooper transported Martin to the department for a breath test which showed his BAC at 7:40 A.M. was .187. Martin signed a written statement and the trooper arrested Martin for driving under the influence and failure to control.
. Martin moved to suppress all evidence obtained as the result of his arrest, which the trial court denied. Martin then properly preserved his arguments for appeal by pleading no contest to the charges against him in accordance with Crim.R. 12(I). In exchange for his plea the charge for failure to control was dismissed. He was then sentenced accordingly. Martin timely appealed this judgment.
. On appeal, Martin's fifth assignment of error dealt with irregularities in the record. Specifically, a document found in the record appeared to be hand-written notes which the clerk who prepared the record labeled "Background from Tpr. Lisa Martin-Williams." On October 25, 2002, we remanded the matter in order for the trial court to determine whether that item should have been included as part of the record on appeal. The trial court responded in a November 10, 2002 entry where it stated that the item was the trial court's personal notes and should not be included as part of the record on appeal. As the trial court has the power to correct the record pursuant to App.R. 9(E), the item Martin complains of is no longer in the record. Therefore, Martin's fifth assignment of error is meritless.
. Martin's remaining assignments of error all deal with the trial court's denial of Martin's motion to suppress. Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents mixed issues of law and fact. State v. Jedd (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 167, 171, 765 N.E.2d 880. When conducting that review, appellate courts must accept a trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Winand (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 286, 288, 688 N.E.2d 9. Accepting those facts as true, we must then independently determine whether the trial court's decision met the applicable legal standard. State v. Santini (20
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|