State v. Cornelius
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Cornelius, 2004-Ohio-2906.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2003-06-150 CA2003-07-171 : - vs : RICHARD CORNELIUS, O P I N I O N 6/7/2004 : Defendant-Appellant. : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BULER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR02-12-1907 Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Randi E. Froug, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Fl., Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee Schad & Cook, Kevin M. Schad, 8240 Beckett Park Drive, Indian Springs, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant WALSH, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Cornelius, appeals a deci- sion of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, denying a motion to suppress evidence. {¶2} We affirm the decision of the trial court. Based on information from a confidential informant that appellant was selling crack cocaine from a residence on Yankee Butler CA2003-06-150 CA2003-07-171 Road in Middletown, police set up surveillance around the home. After observing known crack cocaine users enter the home, remain briefly, then leave, police approached the residence. Police inquired of appellant whether there were any drugs in the home. Appellant responded that the police were free to search the residence; however, he refused to provide written During the search police discovered crack cocaine. consent. Appellant was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. {¶3} Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, claiming that he had not voluntarily consented to the search. The trial court denied the motion, finding that his consent was voluntarily given. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to possession of cocaine, a fourthdegree felony. the trial Upon completing a thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy, court accepted sentenced accordingly. his plea. He was convicted and He appeals, raising one assignment of error: {¶4} "THE COURT ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE APPELLANT CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES." {¶5} In appellant's assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence. However, we need not consider the merits of appellant's argument because he waived his right to contest the adverse ruling on this motion by entering a guilty plea.1 See State v. Kelly (1990), 57 1. Appellant does not argue that his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered. Our review of the plea hearing transcript confirms that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. - 2 - Ohio St.3d 127, 128. Butler CA2003-06-150 CA2003-07-171 Specifically, when a defendant enters a guilty plea, he waives the right to challenge a trial court's decision to overrule a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. See Id. at 130; Huber Heights v. Duty (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 244. For this reason, appellant's assignment of error is overruled. {¶6} Judgment affirmed. YOUNG, P.J., and VALEN, J., concur. - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
