The Guernsey County Court of Appeals has affirmed the convictions of Robert Miller on multiple drug charges but has sent the case back to the trial court for a specific sentencing correction related to Ohio’s “Reagan Tokes Law.” Miller had pleaded no contest to possession and trafficking charges following the denial of his attempt to suppress evidence seized from his residence.
The Suppression Challenge: Staleness and Probable Cause
Robert Miller appealed his conviction, arguing primarily that the search warrant used by law enforcement to search his home was based on stale and insufficient evidence, thus violating his rights.
Miller was indicted on four counts, including possession and trafficking of a fentanyl-related compound. Before entering his plea, he sought to suppress all evidence, claiming the information supporting the search warrant was unreliable. His arguments focused on several points: information from potentially suspect confidential sources, vague details, a controlled buy that occurred over three months before the warrant was issued, and questionable surveillance video evidence.
Detective Adam Masinelli of the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office was the lead investigator. He testified that the investigation began around December 2023 based on information from a confidential source regarding Miller’s fentanyl sales, supplier, and address.
The investigation included several key events:
* February 2024 Traffic Stop: Miller and his girlfriend were stopped, and a large amount of cash was found on Miller. While no drugs were present, a K-9 alerted to their presence. Detective Masinelli noted that large amounts of cash often suggest drug trafficking.
* Financial Records: After learning Miller used CashApp, detectives subpoenaed records covering January through May 2024. These records showed frequent transactions with individuals known to be involved in drug activity, including a high-level supplier.
* Controlled Buy (May 2024): A confidential informant successfully purchased 0.63 grams of a fentanyl-related compound directly from Miller near his residence.
* Mid-August Surveillance: Detectives observed Miller meeting with Robert Berger, an individual known for narcotics involvement. During a later encounter near Miller’s residence, Miller was seen dropping an object into Berger’s vehicle, which Detective Masinelli interpreted as a hand-to-hand drug transaction.
Miller’s attorney argued that the gap between the controlled buy in May and the later surveillance in August made the initial evidence stale.
However, the Court of Appeals sided with the trial court. The appellate judges emphasized that when dealing with ongoing criminal enterprises, like drug trafficking, the “staleness” test is not just about counting days. They noted that drug investigations often involve gaps—a “cat-and-mouse situation”—as dealers become more careful.
The court found that the affidavit presented a “picture of continuing conduct and ongoing drug activity.” Because the evidence pointed toward a pattern rather than a single isolated incident, the passage of time was deemed less significant. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the issuing judge had a substantial basis to conclude probable cause existed for the warrant.
The Sentencing Oversight: Reagan Tokes Law
While Miller lost his argument regarding the evidence suppression, he succeeded on his second appeal point concerning his sentencing hearing on April 18, 2025.
Miller was sentenced after entering a no-contest plea to three counts, receiving an indefinite sentence with a minimum mandatory term of 11 years and a maximum of 17.5 years.
His second assignment of error claimed the trial court failed to properly advise him of his rights under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.19(B)(2)(c)—commonly known as the Reagan Tokes Law. This law mandates specific notifications for offenders sentenced to non-life felony indefinite prison terms. These notifications concern the presumption of early release, the circumstances under which the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction can rebut that presumption, and the potential for continued incarceration beyond the minimum term.
The appellate court reviewed the sentencing transcript and agreed with Miller. The judges stated that the statute places a *mandatory* duty on the court to provide all five required notifications. Since the trial court failed to provide any of these mandatory warnings during the hearing, the appellate court sustained this assignment of error.
The court concluded that this error requires a remand. The case is sent back to the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas for the “sole purpose of permitting the sentencing court to provide the mandatory notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).”
In summary, Miller’s convictions stand based on the evidence supporting the search warrant, but his sentence must be clarified by the trial judge to comply with state requirements regarding post-release supervision and potential early release.