State v. Parsons

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 1315

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress a handgun as evidence. Law enforcement's entry on the property and search of the automobile-which led to the discovery of the handgun outside the vehicle-were lawfully conducted under the automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment, and the handgun was discovered in plain view. The defendant-appellant's convictions are based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective. The State did not fail to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Law enforcement did not act in bad faith in its preservation of potentially useful evidence in contravention of Arizona v. Youngblood. The defendant-appellant's sentence is contrary to law because the trial court imposed a prison term as to each of the three counts of which the defendant-appellant was convicted, and ordered that the terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently, despite concluding that the offenses of which the defendant-appellant were allied offenses of similar import.