State v. Jackson

2026 Ohio 177

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 2025 CA 00011
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2026-Ohio-177.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025 CA 00011

Opinion And Judgment Entry Plaintiff – Appellee Appeal from the Massillion Municipal -vs- Court, Case Nos. 2023 TRC 4779 & 2023 CRB 1708 COREY T. JACKSON Judgment: Reversed and Remanded Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry:January 21, 2026

BEFORE: CRAIG R. BALDWIN, P.J., ROBERT G. MONTGOMERY, KEVIN W. POPHAM, J.; Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: CHRISTOPHER S. PACE, for Plaintiff-Appellee; DAVID BELFIGLIO, for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Popham, J.,

{¶1} In this delayed appeal, Defendant-Appellant Corey Jackson (“Jackson”)

contends that the Massillon Municipal Court erred in denying his motion to suppress

without holding an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons below, we agree.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Following a traffic stop on July 22, 2023, Jackson was charged with failure

to drive in marked lanes, OVI, and possession of marijuana in two separately captioned

cases arising from the same incident. On July 26, 2023, Jackson was arraigned and

entered pleas of not guilty. {¶3} On August 22, 2023, the trial court issued pretrial orders noting that the

results of Jackson’s urine test remained outstanding. The cases were scheduled for a

second pretrial conference on October 12, 2023.

{¶4} On October 12, 2023, Jackson filed a motion for leave to submit an untimely

motion to suppress, along with the proposed motion. As grounds for the delay, counsel

cited the press of business, the receipt of the urine-test results only the previous day, and

counsel’s assessment that the dash-camera video did not reveal a traffic violation. That

same day, the trial court summarily denied the motion by entry stating, in relevant part:

“1. Motion to Suppress – DENIED.”

{¶5} On November 9, 2023, Jackson filed a request for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

{¶6} Thereafter, Jackson entered no-contest pleas to the charges. The trial court

found Jackson guilty and imposed sentence through judgment entries filed on November

16, 2023.

{¶7} On December 14, 2023, the trial court issued an entry and order requiring

the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additionally, the

court expressly stated that its denial of the motion to suppress was not based on

untimeliness but on a substantive finding that articulable suspicion existed for the traffic

stop.

{¶8} On December 21, 2023, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, stating:

Based on the Court’s own viewing of the dash camera video in the

above-captioned case, without taking testimony, the Court finds that the defendant committed a marked lanes violation in the presence of Trooper

Custer, thus providing reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Based on

time of night, early Saturday morning, and other Evans factors, the arresting

officer had articulable reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle for

the traffic violation.

{¶9} On January 18, 2024, Jackson filed a notice of appeal1.

{¶10} On January 25, 2024, Jackson moved to suspend his sentence. The trial

court denied the motion by Judgment Entry filed January 26, 2024, stating:

1. Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suspend Sentence

entered on November 16, 2023.

2. Defendant and the State of Ohio reached an Agreed Upon

and Negotiated Plea after Court viewed the Arresting Officer’s Dash Cam.

Court accommodated Defendant so he would not lose his job and assigned

him to a community service organization of his choice.

3. Court viewed the Dash Cam video with the attorneys and

found, by competent and credible evidence, that the Arresting Officer had

reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Defendant for marked lanes

violations. Further, no hearing was requested by Defendant in his Motion to

Suppress dated 10-12-2024.

4. Court continued all matters in favor of Defendant and the

State so the attorneys could review and discuss the Urine Test results from

the OSP Lab.

1 State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-4667 (5th Dist.). {¶11} In his prior appeal, on February 21, 2024, Jackson filed in the trial court a

Statement of Evidence or Proceedings under App.R. 9(C). On February 22, 2024, the

court issued an order stating:

Court has reviewed Defendant’s Statement of Evidence or

Proceedings under App.R. 9(C)(1). Court finds Defendant’s Statement is a

summary of the informal plea negotiations, each party’s position concerning

the stop of Defendant’s vehicle on July 22, 2023, and the viewing of the

OSP dash camera covering Defendant’s driving and resulting stop. Court

and the attorneys discussed a mutually agreeable plea agreement at two

pretrials; all parties viewed the dash cam video; and Court found that

Defendant crossed and rode on the center line on Erie Street, South,

regarding which the Court has extensive knowledge of the roadway and its

markings. Court further finds that all discussions with the attorneys were in

good faith to reach an agreed-upon plea that would not jeopardize

Defendant’s employment or his ability to obtain occupational and limited

driving privileges.

{¶12} On February 28, 2024, the trial court granted in part Jackson’s motion to

stay the sentence pending appeal.

{¶13} Between March 6, 2024, and September 11, 2024, the trial court continued

Jackson’s probation-review hearings due to the pending appeal.

{¶14} On September 24, 2024, this Court dismissed the January 18, 2024, appeal.

We concluded that an order denying a motion to suppress constitutes a provisional

remedy and is ordinarily not a final, appealable order. We further determined that the November 16, 2023, judgment entries—containing the convictions, sentences, judge’s

signatures, and clerk’s time stamps—were the final appealable orders, and Jackson had

not appealed from those entries. We explained:

Jackson subsequently filed a notice of appeal on January 18, 2024,

which attempts to litigate the merits of the motion to suppress even though

Jackson pled no contest and was convicted of the underlying charges. The

issues raised herein should have been raised on a direct appeal to this

Court when final, appealable orders were filed on November 16, 2023.

State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-4667, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.) (“Jackson I”).

{¶15} On February 20, 2025, Jackson filed a notice of delayed appeal. In granting

the motion, this Court ordered that “[t]he instant appeal shall proceed as if it were filed as

a timely appeal of right.”

Assignments of Error

Jackson raises two assignments of error for our review,

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO HOLD

A HEARING ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”

“II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”

I.

Standard of Review

{¶16} Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed

question of law and fact. State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. The trial court, acting

as the trier of fact, is best positioned to evaluate witness credibility and resolve factual disputes. State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314 (1995); State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d

19, 20 (1982). Accordingly, an appellate court must accept the trial court’s factual findings

if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Burnside at ¶ 8; State v. Diaw,

2025-Ohio-2323, ¶ 8.

{¶17} However, deference to factual findings presupposes that those findings

were made following a procedurally proper determination. Once facts are properly found,

the appellate court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Ornelas v. United

States, 517 U.S. 690, 698 (1996). In doing so, the appellate court should take care to

review findings of fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from

those facts by the trial court and experienced law enforcement officers operating under

local conditions. Id. at 699.

{¶18} A motion to suppress is a pretrial motion governed by Crim.R. 12(C)(3) and

subject to the filing deadlines set forth in Crim.R. 12(D). The failure to file such a motion

within the prescribed time results in waiver unless the trial court, in the interest of justice,

grants leave for good cause shown. Crim.R. 12(H); State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 97

(1995).

{¶19} When a trial court elects to consider the merits of an untimely motion—

rather than deny it on procedural grounds—the court necessarily exercises its discretion

to excuse the untimeliness. State v. Bower, 2010-Ohio-4420, ¶ 14 (5th Dist.). That

discretionary decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Medley,

2025-Ohio-1754, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court’s decision

is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, including when it rests on legally incorrect reasoning or is unsupported by the record. Tennant v. Gallick, 2014-Ohio-477, ¶ 35 (9th

Dist.); State v. Roman-Navarre, 2025-Ohio-3156, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

{¶20} Crim.R. 12(E) requires a trial court to state its essential findings on the

record when factual issues are involved in resolving a motion. This requirement is

triggered only upon a defendant’s request. State v. Benner, 40 Ohio St.3d 301, 317-318

(1989); State ex rel. Sharif v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 85 Ohio St.3d 375,

376-377 (1999).

{¶21} Findings of fact are unnecessary where the court resolves no factual

disputes, which is unpersuasive here, as the trial court expressly determined that a

reasonable articulable suspicion existed - a determination that is inherently factual and

fact-dependent. See State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 326 (1998) (findings

not required only where no factual issues must be resolved).

{¶22} On October 12, 2023, the trial court overruled Jackson’s motion to suppress

- without issuing findings of fact. On November 9, 2023, Jackson timely requested factual

findings. On November 16, 2023, Jackson entered no-contest pleas and was thereafter

sentenced. Only after this final judgment did the trial court issue – on December 21, 2023

– its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

{¶23} Post-hoc findings issued after conviction and sentencing, cannot cure the

absence of a procedurally proper determination at the time the motion was denied, nor

can post-hoc findings substitute for findings made following an evidentiary hearing where

factual disputes are at issue. Hearing on the Motion to Suppress

{¶24} A defendant is entitled to a suppression hearing when the motion lays out

the legal and factual grounds with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the

court on notice of the issues to be decided. State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (1994),

syllabus; Crim.R. 47.

{¶25} Jackson’s motion squarely challenged the existence of reasonable

articulable suspicion for the warrantless traffic stop; Jackson relied on controlling authority

to frame that challenge. Specifically, Jackson alleged that the dash-camera footage did

not show a marked-lanes violation and cited State v. Turner, 2020-Ohio-6773, for the

proposition that merely driving on, without crossing, a lane-control line does not constitute

a violation. These allegations were sufficient to place both the prosecutor and the trial

court on notice of the precise legal and factual issues to be resolved.

{¶26} Once that threshold-showing [of a warrantless search] was made, the

burden shifted to the State to justify, at an evidentiary hearing, the stop. Xenia v. Wallace,

37 Ohio St.3d 216, 220 (1988). As noted by the Xenia Court, “[l]aw enforcement searches

and seizures without the authority of a warrant are not entitled to a presumption of

legality”, and the burden of production falls upon the prosecution. Id. Moreover, Jackson’s

failure to object to the court’s viewing of the dash-camera video does not constitute a

waiver of his right to a hearing, nor does it relieve the State of its burden of proof.

{¶27} If a motion to suppress meets the minimum standards of Crim.R. 47, the

trial court must hold a suppression hearing. State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-

Ohio-1574, ¶9. {¶28} It may be argued that any error was harmless because the trial court

ultimately found reasonable articulable suspicion – as justification for the stop. That

argument fails because the trial court reached that conclusion without conducting a

hearing and without affording Jackson the opportunity to challenge the State’s evidence

through cross-examination or the presentation of evidence. The maxim “the end may

justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end” rings hollow in this

circumstance.

{¶29} Indeed, in its December 14, 2023, entry, the trial court expressly stated that

its denial of the motion to suppress was not based on untimeliness but on a substantive

finding that reasonable articulable suspicion existed. By resolving that disputed factual

issue without an evidentiary hearing, the court deprived Jackson of the process to which

he was entitled.

{¶30} Further, courts have consistently held that once an appeal is perfected, the

trial court is divested of jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing

court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment. State ex rel. Rock v. School

Emp. Retirement Bd., 2002-Ohio-3957, ¶ 8. As the Supreme Court of Ohio noted,

[T]he determination as to the appropriateness of an appeal lies solely

with the appellate court,” and a trial court judge’s opinion that the order

appealed from is not a final, appealable order does not alter the fact that the

filing of the notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed

with the adjudication during the pendency of the appeal. In re S.J., 106

Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, ¶ 10-11; see also In re

Terrance P. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 487, 489, 706 N.E.2d 801 (“the trial court does not have any jurisdiction to consider whether the person has

validly invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate court”).

State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common

Pleas, 2011-Ohio-626, ¶16. (Emphasis added).

{¶31} Although this Court dismissed Jackson’s initial appeal, our previous

dismissal for lack of a final appealable order does not confer jurisdiction in the trial court

to issue orders – during the pendency of the appeal - relating to the subject matter on

appeal. As such, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction, and its orders issued between

January 18, 2024, and September 24, 2024, are void – without force and effect – with

respect to any findings made by the trial court concerning the motion to suppress. Id. at

¶16; In re S.J., 2005-Ohio-3215, ¶15.

{¶32} In summary, where a motion to suppress sufficiently places the parties on

notice of a disputed factual issue central to the legality of a traffic stop, and the trial court

resolves that issue without an evidentiary hearing, the ruling constitutes an abuse of

discretion.

{¶33} Jackson’s first assignment of error is sustained.

II.

{¶34} In his second assignment of error, Jackson argues the trial court erred as a

matter of law in denying his motion to suppress. Specifically, Jackson argues that no

competent, credible evidence supported the finding that Jackson committed a marked

lane violation.

{¶35} Considering our disposition of Jackson’s first assignment of error, we hold

that Jackson’s second assignment of error is overruled as premature. {¶36} The judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court overruling Jackson’s motion

to suppress is vacated. This cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings

according to law.

For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Massillon Municipal

Court is Reversed, and this case is Remanded to that court for further proceedings. Costs

to Appellee.

By: Popham, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur