State of Ohio v. Elmer Lebron-Novas

Sandusky, Ohio criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug trafficking cocaine.



On January 14, 2021, Defendant was indicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(4)(g), a first degree felony; one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(f), a first degree felony; one count of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(9)(h), a first degree felony; one count of possession of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(11)(g), a first degree felony; one count of trafficking in drugs (tramadol) in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (c)(2)(c), a fourth degree felony; one count of possession of drugs (tramadol) in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(2)(b), a fourth degree felony; and one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C), a fourth degree felony. Each of the first four counts included a related specification that appellant was a major drug offender pursuant to R.C. 2641.1410(A). The charges arose from a July 9, 2020 incident in which appellant was pulled over by an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper for following the vehicle in front of him too closely. During the stop, the trooper conducted a search of the vehicle and discovered a compound that was ultimately determined to contain cocaine, fentanyl, and Tramadol.



Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during a search of his car during a traffic stop, which was denied.



. The trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of 11 to 16 1/2 years for each of the offenses on which the jury found appellant guilty, to be served concurrently. The trial court also imposed a three-year prison term for each of the major drug offender specifications related to those offenses. The sentences on the specifications were ordered to be served concurrently, but consecutive to the underlying prison terms, resulting in an aggregate, indefinite prison term of 14 to 19 1/2 years. Appellant's sentence was memorialized in a judgment entry on March 30, 2023.



* * *



The review of a trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress first requires the appellate court to review the trial court's factual findings. Bui at ¶ 29. We must defer to the trial court's findings if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. However, "if an officer's testimony is contradicted by video recorded on a dashboard camera or body camera, an appellate court cannot find that the decision of the trial court was supported by competent and credible evidence. Vermillion at ¶ 5. Having reviewed the record, including the dashboard camera and the still photograph taken from that video, we find that Trooper Browne's testimony is contradicted by the video, precluding us from finding that the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress was supported by competent, credible evidence.



* * *



Legal issue Did the trial court err in denying a motion to suppress evidence due to a lack of reasonable, articulable suspicion for a traffic stop?

Headnote



**CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.** This case examines whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, arguing that the officer had no reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the stop, thus violating the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.



**EVIDENCE. DASH CAMERA CONTRADICTION.** The court had to determine whether the officer's testimony was credible or if it was contradicted by dash camera footage, thereby affecting the trial court's finding of reasonable suspicion.



**CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING ERRORS.** The judgment addresses errors made by the trial court in imposing individual sentences for merged offenses and the incorrect application of major drug offender specifications contrary to the sentencing statutes.



Key Phrases Motion to suppress evidence. Reasonable and articulable suspicion. Traffic law enforcement. Following too closely violation. Inconsistent testimony.

Reversed.