[Cite as State v. Poudel,
2023-Ohio-995.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 2022 CA 00071
DEVI POUDEL
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 21-CR-00565
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 24, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JENNY WELLS STEPHEN T. WOLFE
Licking County Prosecutor Wolfe Law Group, LLC
1350 W. 5th Avenue – Suite #330
ROBERT N. ABDALLA Columbus, Ohio 43212
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
20 S. Second Street
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Devi Poudel appeals the judgment entered by the
Licking County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest to
two counts of aggravated vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a), R.C.
2903.08(A)(2)(b)) and sentencing him to twenty-four months incarceration. Plaintiff-
appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On September 19, 2021, Trooper Zack Drake of the Ohio State Highway
Patrol was dispatched to the scene of an accident in Licking County involving an
automobile and a motorcycle. The Trooper was dispatched around 9:30 p.m., while the
accident occurred around 8:30 p.m.
{¶3} The trooper saw a motorcycle in the roadway, and a car off to the side.
Appellant, who is a native of Nepal, was in the driver’s seat of the car. The trooper had
experience with Nepali immigrants. Appellant told the trooper he had been in the United
States for eleven years, and was a citizen.
{¶4} Trooper Drake told Appellant he wanted to talk to him about the accident.
The trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Appellant, and his eyes were
bloodshot and glassy. Appellant stated he had two Corona beers to drink. Trooper Drake
asked Appellant to walk to the front of the cruiser, where the dash camera would capture
the encounter. The trooper conducted field sobriety tests on Appellant. Trooper Drake
detected six of six clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, five of eight clues on the
walk and turn test, and three of four clues on the one-leg stand test. Appellant did not
express difficulty understanding the officer, and responded appropriately to the
instructions for the tests and to the officer’s questions.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 3
{¶5} After conducting field sobriety tests, Trooper Drake placed Appellant under
arrest, provided Appellant with Miranda warnings, and read Appellant the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles Form 2255 regarding test refusal. Appellant agreed to a breathalyzer test.
Trooper Drake transported Appellant to the Granville Highway Patrol post, where the
breath test was administered, and Appellant gave a statement. The results of the
breathalyzer test were .184.
{¶6} Appellant was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury with two counts of
aggravated vehicular assault. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the field
sobriety tests and the breath test, arguing his consent to testing and waiver of his Miranda
rights was not voluntary given his limited understanding of English and lack of experience
with police. Appellant also argued under the circumstances of this case, Miranda
warnings were required before any testing or questioning commenced.
{¶7} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Trooper Drake testified,
and the video taken from his dash camera was admitted into evidence. Appellant testified
at the hearing, solely with the aid of an interpreter. He testified he had been in the United
States since 2012, and had been a citizen since 2018. He testified he held the same job
for eight years, and another job for two years prior to his current job. He testified at work,
he asks someone to help him when he doesn’t understand English, or would bring a friend
or interpreter to assist him. He testified he did not understand any of the proceedings
with Trooper Drake at the scene of the accident, and did not understand he was waiving
his rights. While he initially testified he did not remember speaking with Trooper Drake in
English, he later corrected himself and testified he did remember speaking with the
trooper in English.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 4
{¶8} The trial court overruled the motion, finding Miranda warnings are not
required before administering field sobriety tests. The trial court further found Appellant’s
testimony he could not understand English and therefore did not understand what was
happening in the encounter with the trooper was not credible. The trial court overruled
the motion to suppress.
{¶9} Appellant entered a plea of no contest to both counts in the indictment and
was convicted. The trial court found the convictions merged, and the State elected to
have Appellant sentenced on Count One. Appellant was sentenced to twenty-four
months incarceration.
{¶10} It is from the August 15, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant
prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT
APPELLANT’S TESTIMONY WAS NOT CREDIBLE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO EVALUATE
WHETHER APPELLANT’S STATEMENTS WERE MADE KNOWINGLY,
VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY.
III. THE TRIAL COURT REACHED THE WRONG CONCLUSION
BASED UPON ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO ITS FINDINGS OF
FACT.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 5
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶11} Appellant’s assignments of error all claim error in the trial court’s judgment
overruling his motion to suppress. Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a
mixed question of law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154-155, 2003-
Ohio-5372,
797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court
assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and
to evaluate witness credibility. See State v. Dunlap,
73 Ohio St.3d 308,314, 1995-Ohio-
243,
652 N.E.2d 988; State v. Fanning,
1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20,
437 N.E.2d 583 (1982).
Accordingly, a reviewing court must defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent,
credible evidence exists to support those findings. See
Burnside, supra;Dunlap, supra;
State v. Long,
127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332,
713 N.E.2d 1(4th Dist. 1998); State v. Medcalf,
111 Ohio App.3d 142,
675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist. 1996). However, once this Court has
accepted those facts as true, it must independently determine as a matter of law whether
the trial court met the applicable legal standard. See
Burnside, supra, citing State v.
McNamara,
124 Ohio App.3d 706,
707 N.E.2d 539(4th Dist. 1997); See, generally, United
States v. Arvizu,
534 U.S. 266,
122 S.Ct. 744,
151 L.Ed.2d 740(2002); Ornelas v. United
States,
517 U.S. 690,
116 S.Ct. 1657,
134 L.Ed.2d 911(1996). That is, the application of
the law to the trial court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review.
Ornelas, supra. Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those
facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.”
Ornelas, supra at 698,
116
S.Ct. at 1663.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 6
I.
{¶12} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
finding his testimony at the suppression hearing was not credible.
{¶13} The trial court made the following findings concerning Appellant’s credibility
in its judgment entry overruling the motion to suppress:
The defendant’s testimony at the hearing was simply not credible.
On the videotape, the defendant conversed with the Highway Patrol trooper
at all times during the interaction with him, which was nearly 45 minutes.
He had no problem conversing with the officer in English at any time. He
tells him he has been in Ohio for eleven years. He is obviously able to
understand the officer. He counted aloud to thirty on the one leg stand, in
English. At no time in the entirety of the video does he ever say, “I don’t
understand,” “I need help,” “Could you slow down” or “Explain that to me,”
or anything of that nature at any time ever, and he certainly never says, “I
don’t speak, understand, read or write English.” Although raised in the
defendant’s motion, there simply are not other officers or patrol people
present on the video. There are no other lights, no other emergency squad
people, and no other law enforcement officers in the area. The
circumstances are simply not duress or an intensive law enforcement
presence under any circumstances. When the officer asks the defendant if
there is anything sharp in his pockets that might stick him or cause him
injury like needles, the defendant tells the trooper that his phone and money
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 7
are in his pocket and that his wallet is still in the car. It defies credibility to
argue that he could not understand when he responds to every question
that was asked of him and never suggests that he did not understand.
{¶14} Judgment Entry, April 19, 2022, pp. 3-4.
{¶15} During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact
and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness
credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 154,
661 N.E.2d 1030 (1996). A reviewing
court is bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent,
credible evidence. State v. Kopp, 5th Dist. No. 16-CA-96,
2017-Ohio-4428,
93 N.E.3d
199, ¶ 19.
{¶16} We have reviewed the dash camera video admitted into evidence in this
case, and we find the trial court’s finding Appellant’s testimony was not credible is
supported by the evidence. Throughout the entire encounter, Appellant conversed with
the trooper in English. While Appellant testified he simply followed the physical
demonstration of the field sobriety tests and did not follow the verbal instructions given in
English, he was able to count to thirty in English on the one-leg stand test, and further
was able to count nine steps on the walk and turn test according to the verbal instructions
given by the trooper, who had only demonstrated three steps. Appellant’s responses to
questions from the officer were appropriate. Nothing in the video suggests Appellant had
difficulty understanding or speaking English.
{¶17} The first assignment of error is overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 8
II.
{¶18} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
focusing on the fact Miranda warnings are not required before conducting field sobriety
tests, and failed to address whether Appellant’s statements were made knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently.
{¶19} We note Appellant raised the issue of the requirement of Miranda warnings
before field sobriety tests are administered, arguing in his motion, “Although he was not
physically in the custody of the police, the investigative focus of the interaction and the
demonstrated probable cause required that the Defendant be advised of his rights under
Miranda before any questioning or testing commenced.” Suppression motion, p. 8.
Therefore, the trial court appropriately addressed this argument, citing case law to support
the conclusion Miranda warnings are not required prior to the administration of field
sobriety tests.
{¶20} Further, we find the trial court did address whether Appellant’s statements
were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently:
In the case before the Court, the record firmly establishes that the
defendant’s rights were adequately explained to him and that he understood
his rights and that he voluntarily waived them. The record permits only one
conclusion: The defendant understood the Miranda advisement. The
record further firmly establishes that the defendant adequately understood
every word of English that was spoken to him on September 19 th of 2021.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 9
{¶21} Judgment Entry, April 19, 2022, p. 5.
{¶22} The trial court further found, as quoted in our discussion of assignment of
error one, the record does not support Appellant’s claim of an intensive, intimidating police
presence. We find the trial court addressed adequately Appellant’s claim his statements
to police were not voluntary, intelligent or knowing.
{¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶24} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court reached the
wrong conclusion concerning the voluntariness of his statements to police, and the court
improperly relied on cases in which an interpreter was provided to a non-English speaking
defendant.
{¶25} Appellant’s argument relies for its validity on his claim he could not
adequately speak English and did not understand what was happening during the
encounter with police. However, as discussed in our review of Appellant’s first
assignment of error, the trial court found his testimony to not be credible, and we find the
trial court’s conclusion Appellant was able to understand and speak English throughout
the encounter with Trooper Drake is supported by the 45-minute dash cam video in the
instant case. Because the record does not support Appellant’s claim his inability to speak
English rendered his statements to police involuntary, we find the trial court did not err in
concluding his waiver of his Miranda rights and consent to the breathalyzer test was
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Licking County, Case No. 2022CA00071 10
{¶26} The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶27} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Delaney, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
