[Cite as State v. Perrill, 2026-Ohio-218.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 24CA18 & 19 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : DISMISSING THE APPEAL MARINDA PERRILL, : : Defendant-Appellant. : RELEASED: 01/16/2026
APPEARANCES:
Keith A. Yeazel, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jamie Hartley Fountain, Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney, and Heather MJ Carter Pickaway County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Circleville, Ohio, for Appellee.
Wilkin, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal of a Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas
judgment entry in which Marinda Perrill (“Perrill”) was convicted of four criminal
counts, including three counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of
possession of cocaine. On appeal Perrill asserts two assignments of error. In
her first assignment of error, Perrill claims that the trial court erred in overruling
her motion to suppress. In her second assignment of error, Perrill asserts that
the trial court erred in finding venue for counts one, two, and three of the
indictment was proper in Pickaway County, Ohio.
{¶2} The State charged Perrill with five criminal counts. However, the trial
court’s judgment addressed only four of the five criminal counts, and there is no
indication in the record that the remaining count for trafficking in cocaine was Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 2
ever dismissed or was otherwise resolved. Therefore, we find that the trial
court’s judgment was not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss
Perrill’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
{¶3} On December 1, 2022, the State charged Perrill with the following:
Counts 1 and 2, trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)/(C)(4)(a),
both felonies of the fifth degree; Count 3, trafficking in cocaine, in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)/(C)(4)(c), a felony of the fourth degree; Court 4, trafficking in
cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(4)(e), a felony of the second
degree; and Count 5, possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)/(C)(4)(d), a felony of the second degree.
{¶4} On March 6, 2023, Perrill filed a motion to suppress evidence that
was obtained as a result of a traffic stop. Perrill alleged that she was a target of
an investigation started in October of 2021 and conducted by the South Central
Ohio Major Crimes Unit and the Grove City Police Department. Her motion
claimed that on May 4, 2022, officers from several agencies discussed their plan
to surveille Perrill, as well as search her home and workplace. Perrill claimed
that as she left home for work, she was followed by two undercover agents,
Detective Deskins and Special Agent Swope. Perrill claimed that Detective
Deskins observed her roll through a stop sign. She maintained that he relayed
that information to Special Agent Swope, who then informed Sergeant Kyle
Eveland of the Pickaway County Sheriff’s Office, who effected a traffic stop of Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 3
Perrill. Perrill claimed that Sergeant Eveland had also been wrongly advised that
there were outstanding felony charges for her arrest.
{¶5} After being stopped, Perrill claimed that Sergeant Eveland ordered
her out of the vehicle, handcuffed her, and read her Miranda rights. Perrill
claimed Sergent Eveland then deployed his canine that indicated there were
drugs in her car. She claimed that during a search of her vehicle, officers
discovered what they believed to be illegal drugs, which later tested positive for
cocaine.
{¶6} Perrill alleged that Sergeant Eveland lacked reasonable articulable
suspicion of any offense to support the May 4, 2022 traffic stop of her vehicle.
{¶7} Perrill also argued that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally
expanded beyond the time needed to effectuate the stop. She claimed that
Sergeant Eveland made no attempt to effectuate the purpose of the stop. He
immediately removed her from the vehicle, handcuffed her, and read her Miranda
rights. Perrill claimed that she was arrested. Perrill asserted that the scope of
the stop was expanded beyond the purpose of the traffic stop (rolling through the
stop sign) without reasonable suspicion that any criminal offense had been
committed.
{¶8} Perrill also argued that the search of her cell phone, and Facebook
account violated her Fourth Amendment rights to be protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
{¶9} On April 24, 2023, the State filed a memorandum contra Perrill’s
motion to suppress. The State maintained that the stop was constitutional. The Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 4
State argued that a law enforcement officer may rely upon another law
enforcement officer’s observation of a traffic violation so as to permit the former
to execute a traffic stop under the “collective knowledge doctrine.”
{¶10} The State further maintained that the traffic stop was not
unconstitutionally extended beyond the time required to effectuate the stop. The
State claimed that from the start of the traffic stop to the canine’s “free air sniff” of
Perrill’s vehicle was “extremely short.”
{¶11} Finally, the State asserted that the search of Perrill’s cell phone and
Facebook account was also constitutional.
{¶12} On April 26, 2023, the trial court held a suppression hearing. The
State presented three witnesses: Sergent Eveland, Detective Deskins, and
Special Agent Swope. After hearing the testimony, the court asked the parties
for supplemental briefs on the issues of: (1) was the traffic stop lawful, and (2)
was the subsequent detention of Perrill lawful. Consequently, both parties filed
post-hearing briefs.
{¶13} On May 12, 2023, the trial court issued a decision that denied
Perrill’s motion to suppress the drugs recovered during the traffic stop. The court
determined that Sergent Eveland’s reliance on another officer’s observation of
Perrill’s failure to stop at a stop sign was justified under the collective knowledge
doctrine. The court also found that this observation was sufficient to establish
reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation.
{¶14} The court acknowledged that Sergeant Eveland should not have
immediately arrested Perrill, because, contrary to what he was told, Perrill had no Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 5
outstanding warrants for her arrest. However, the Court found that the length of
the traffic stop was reasonable, including the use of Sergeant Eveland’s drug-
detecting canine. The canine’s alert led to the search of Perrill’s vehicle,
resulting in the discovery of drugs and her subsequent arrest. Therefore, the
court found that the premature arrest of Perrill was harmless error. Accordingly,
the court found the traffic stop and subsequent discovery of illegal drugs was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
{¶15} However, the court found the warrant to search Perrill’s cell phone,
and her Facebook account was unconstitutional.
{¶16} Therefore, the trial court denied in part and granted in part, Perrill’s
motion to suppress.
{¶17} On August 24, 2023, pursuant to an oral request by the prosecution,
the court dismissed the case against Perrill without prejudice (case no. 2022-CR-
236).
{¶18} However, on November 2, 2023, the State reindicted Perrill in case
no.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Perrill, 2026-Ohio-218.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 24CA18 & 19 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : DISMISSING THE APPEAL MARINDA PERRILL, : : Defendant-Appellant. : RELEASED: 01/16/2026
APPEARANCES:
Keith A. Yeazel, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jamie Hartley Fountain, Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney, and Heather MJ Carter Pickaway County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Circleville, Ohio, for Appellee.
Wilkin, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal of a Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas
judgment entry in which Marinda Perrill (“Perrill”) was convicted of four criminal
counts, including three counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of
possession of cocaine. On appeal Perrill asserts two assignments of error. In
her first assignment of error, Perrill claims that the trial court erred in overruling
her motion to suppress. In her second assignment of error, Perrill asserts that
the trial court erred in finding venue for counts one, two, and three of the
indictment was proper in Pickaway County, Ohio.
{¶2} The State charged Perrill with five criminal counts. However, the trial
court’s judgment addressed only four of the five criminal counts, and there is no
indication in the record that the remaining count for trafficking in cocaine was Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 2
ever dismissed or was otherwise resolved. Therefore, we find that the trial
court’s judgment was not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss
Perrill’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
{¶3} On December 1, 2022, the State charged Perrill with the following:
Counts 1 and 2, trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)/(C)(4)(a),
both felonies of the fifth degree; Count 3, trafficking in cocaine, in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)/(C)(4)(c), a felony of the fourth degree; Court 4, trafficking in
cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(4)(e), a felony of the second
degree; and Count 5, possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)/(C)(4)(d), a felony of the second degree.
{¶4} On March 6, 2023, Perrill filed a motion to suppress evidence that
was obtained as a result of a traffic stop. Perrill alleged that she was a target of
an investigation started in October of 2021 and conducted by the South Central
Ohio Major Crimes Unit and the Grove City Police Department. Her motion
claimed that on May 4, 2022, officers from several agencies discussed their plan
to surveille Perrill, as well as search her home and workplace. Perrill claimed
that as she left home for work, she was followed by two undercover agents,
Detective Deskins and Special Agent Swope. Perrill claimed that Detective
Deskins observed her roll through a stop sign. She maintained that he relayed
that information to Special Agent Swope, who then informed Sergeant Kyle
Eveland of the Pickaway County Sheriff’s Office, who effected a traffic stop of Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 3
Perrill. Perrill claimed that Sergeant Eveland had also been wrongly advised that
there were outstanding felony charges for her arrest.
{¶5} After being stopped, Perrill claimed that Sergeant Eveland ordered
her out of the vehicle, handcuffed her, and read her Miranda rights. Perrill
claimed Sergent Eveland then deployed his canine that indicated there were
drugs in her car. She claimed that during a search of her vehicle, officers
discovered what they believed to be illegal drugs, which later tested positive for
cocaine.
{¶6} Perrill alleged that Sergeant Eveland lacked reasonable articulable
suspicion of any offense to support the May 4, 2022 traffic stop of her vehicle.
{¶7} Perrill also argued that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally
expanded beyond the time needed to effectuate the stop. She claimed that
Sergeant Eveland made no attempt to effectuate the purpose of the stop. He
immediately removed her from the vehicle, handcuffed her, and read her Miranda
rights. Perrill claimed that she was arrested. Perrill asserted that the scope of
the stop was expanded beyond the purpose of the traffic stop (rolling through the
stop sign) without reasonable suspicion that any criminal offense had been
committed.
{¶8} Perrill also argued that the search of her cell phone, and Facebook
account violated her Fourth Amendment rights to be protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
{¶9} On April 24, 2023, the State filed a memorandum contra Perrill’s
motion to suppress. The State maintained that the stop was constitutional. The Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 4
State argued that a law enforcement officer may rely upon another law
enforcement officer’s observation of a traffic violation so as to permit the former
to execute a traffic stop under the “collective knowledge doctrine.”
{¶10} The State further maintained that the traffic stop was not
unconstitutionally extended beyond the time required to effectuate the stop. The
State claimed that from the start of the traffic stop to the canine’s “free air sniff” of
Perrill’s vehicle was “extremely short.”
{¶11} Finally, the State asserted that the search of Perrill’s cell phone and
Facebook account was also constitutional.
{¶12} On April 26, 2023, the trial court held a suppression hearing. The
State presented three witnesses: Sergent Eveland, Detective Deskins, and
Special Agent Swope. After hearing the testimony, the court asked the parties
for supplemental briefs on the issues of: (1) was the traffic stop lawful, and (2)
was the subsequent detention of Perrill lawful. Consequently, both parties filed
post-hearing briefs.
{¶13} On May 12, 2023, the trial court issued a decision that denied
Perrill’s motion to suppress the drugs recovered during the traffic stop. The court
determined that Sergent Eveland’s reliance on another officer’s observation of
Perrill’s failure to stop at a stop sign was justified under the collective knowledge
doctrine. The court also found that this observation was sufficient to establish
reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation.
{¶14} The court acknowledged that Sergeant Eveland should not have
immediately arrested Perrill, because, contrary to what he was told, Perrill had no Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 5
outstanding warrants for her arrest. However, the Court found that the length of
the traffic stop was reasonable, including the use of Sergeant Eveland’s drug-
detecting canine. The canine’s alert led to the search of Perrill’s vehicle,
resulting in the discovery of drugs and her subsequent arrest. Therefore, the
court found that the premature arrest of Perrill was harmless error. Accordingly,
the court found the traffic stop and subsequent discovery of illegal drugs was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
{¶15} However, the court found the warrant to search Perrill’s cell phone,
and her Facebook account was unconstitutional.
{¶16} Therefore, the trial court denied in part and granted in part, Perrill’s
motion to suppress.
{¶17} On August 24, 2023, pursuant to an oral request by the prosecution,
the court dismissed the case against Perrill without prejudice (case no. 2022-CR-
236).
{¶18} However, on November 2, 2023, the State reindicted Perrill in case
no. 2023-CR-194, which contained the same five criminal counts that it charged
her with in case no. 2022-CR-236.
{¶19} On February 7, 2024, the court issued an order stating that:
By agreement of the parties, the court hereby finds that [case no. 2023-CR-194] is a reindictment following the dismissal of case number 2022-CR-236. Therefore, it is ordered that all the filings and findings of this Court in case 2022-CR-236 apply to the case herein. This includes the motion to suppress, memorandum contra motion to dismiss, and the finding by this Court regarding Defendant’s motion to suppress. Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 6
{¶20} On May 15, 2024, Perrill pleaded no contest to counts 1, 2, 3, and 5
in the indictment. The court found Perrill guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, and 5, and
ordered a presentence report.
{¶21} On June 27, 2024, the court sentenced Perrill to 12 months in prison
for Counts 1 and 2, 18 months for Count 3, and a mandatory 4 to 6 years on
Count 5. Counts 1 and 2 were to run concurrently with each other but
consecutively to the other counts. Counts 3 and 5 were to run consecutively,
resulting in a total prison term ranging from 4 years and 30 months to 6 years
and 30 months, with 4 years being mandatory.
{¶22} Perrill filed a notice of appeal on July 25, 2024, in case no. 2022-
CR-236, and on June 27, 2024, for case no. 2023-CR-194.
{¶23} This court issued an order asking Perrill to brief why her appeal of
the May 12, 2023 was not untimely. Perrill cited the February 7, 2024 agreed
entry, which stated that case no. 2023-CR-194 was a reindictment of the charges
from case no. 2022-CR-236 after its dismissal. She argued that the trial court’s
May 12, 2023 decision, which partially denied her March 6, 2023 motion to
suppress in case no. 2022-Ohio-236, was not final. Perrill claimed that this
decision was incorporated into the final judgment issued on June 27, 2024 in
case no. 2023-CR-194. Thus, she contends that her appeal is from case no.
2023-CR-194, which was timely filed. We agreed with Perrill’s analysis and
permitted her appeal to proceed.
PERRILL’S APPEAL Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 7
{¶24} On appeal Perrill asserts two assignments of error. First, she claims
the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress. Second, she asserts
the trial court erred in finding that venue for counts one, two, and three of the
indictment was proper in Pickaway County, Ohio. As we stated infra, before we
consider the merits of Perrill’s appeal, we must determine if we have jurisdiction
to do so.
{¶25} “Courts of appeals have jurisdiction to ‘affirm, modify, or reverse
judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals
within the district.’ ” State v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-4927, ¶13 (4th Dist.), quoting
Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. “ ‘As a result “[i]t is well-established
that an order [or judgment] must be final before it can be reviewed by an
appellate court. If an order [or judgment] is not final, then an appellate court has
no jurisdiction.” ’ ” (Brackets original; Emphasis added.) Id., quoting Gehm v.
Timberline Post & Frame, 2007-Ohio-607, ¶ 14, quoting Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins.
Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).
{¶26} “ ‘This court consistently has stated that a trial court's judgment of
conviction is not final and appealable if any counts of the indictment remain
unresolved.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting State v. McKinney, 2023-Ohio-1587, ¶ 11 (4th
Dist.). Consequently, “[b]efore the judgment of conviction may become final and
appealable . . . the record must reflect that all counts of the indictment actually
were resolved in some manner.” Id. at ¶18, citing State v. Craig, 2020-Ohio-455,
¶ 21 (“a conviction on one count of a multicount indictment is not a final,
appealable order when other counts remain pending ...”). A failure to properly Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 8
terminate these so-called “ ‘hanging charge[s]’ prevents the conviction from being
a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) because it does not determine the action,
i.e., resolve the case.’ ” State v. Marcum, 2012-Ohio-572, ¶ 6 (4th Dist.), citing
Painter and Pollis, Ohio Appellate Practice (2011–2012 Ed.).
{¶27} In the November 2, 2023 indictment, the State charged Perrill with
five criminal counts, including four for trafficking in cocaine and one for
possession of cocaine. However, Perrill’s petition to plead no contest, the trial
court’s entry accepting Perrill’s no-contest plea, and the sentencing entry all
indicate that she pleaded no contest to four criminal counts, including three
counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. Despite
a thorough review of the record, we cannot find any indication that the fourth
count of trafficking in cocaine was dismissed, nollied, or otherwise resolved.
Therefore, despite Perrill’s no-contest plea, one count (count 4) trafficking in
cocaine remains pending. As a result, because there is an unresolved trafficking
charge, there is no final appeal order for Perrill to appeal.
CONCLUSION
{¶28} Because Perrill’s no contest plea is not a final appealable order, we
dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED. Pickaway App. Nos. 24CA18 and 24CA19 9
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the APPEAL IS DISMISSED and that appellant shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Pickaway County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Abele, J. and Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: ____________________________ Kristy S. Wilkin, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.