State v. Brady

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 46

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by overruling either of Appellant's motions to suppress. There was no Miranda violation, because Appellant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Rather, he was lawfully detained for investigatory purposes. Appellant's consent to search his car was valid. When the officer asked for the consent, Appellant was being detained lawfully. The officer did not need a particular reason to search the car. Brady did not establish a violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), because he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search a USB drive contained a false or misleading statement. The affidavit provided a substantial basis to find probable cause that the USB drive contained evidence of sexual assault. The 77-year aggregate prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. The sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, because each individual prison sentence was within the authorized statutory range. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings. Videos found on a USB drive show Appellant raping his daughter on numerous occasions. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.) (Donovan, J., concurring in both the majority opinion and the concurring opinion.)