 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Draper3/31/2003
Defendant-appellant Laverne L. Draper appeals from her August 26, 2002, conviction on one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R. C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (A)(3). Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On May 9, 2002, at approximately 3:30 A.M., an Alliance Police Department Partrolman observed an automobile which was parked at an angle, partially on the roadway and partially on the sidewalk. The patrolman stopped to investigate. Laverne Draper [hereinafter appellant] was found asleep in the vehicle. The engine was not running and the keys were on the floor of the vehicle, below the steering column, on the driver's side.
The patrolman awakened appellant. As appellant stepped out of the car, the patrolman observed that appellant had urinated on herself. Appellant admitted to the patrolman that she had driven the vehicle from a bar and had parked the car in front of her residence earlier, where it was found by the patrolman. The patrolman administered standardized field sobriety tests on appellant. The patrolman found that she performed poorly on the tests and placed appellant under arrest for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant submitted to a breathalyzer test which returned a BAC result of 0.109 percent.
Appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, in violation of R. C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (A)(3). On June 7, 2002, appellant filed a motion to suppress. Upon a hearing on the motion on July 5, 2002, the trial court overruled appellant's motion. On August 26, 2002, appellant entered a plea of no contest. The trial court subsequently found appellant guilty and sentenced appellant.
It is from the August 26, 2002, conviction that appellant appeals, raising the following assignment of error:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FINDING THAT SHE OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(3)."
There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See, State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583; State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 597 N.E.2d 1141; State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592, 621 N.E.2d 726. Second, an appellant may argue that the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. See, State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141, overruled on other grounds. Finally, assuming that the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172; State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 627, 620 N.E.2d 906 and Guysinger, supra. It is based on these standards that we review appellant's assignment of error.
In essence, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it found that the arresti
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|