COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60178 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION BRENDA CAMPBELL : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : APRIL 16, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-247,875 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor SCOTT G. SALISBURY, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: BARTLEY J. TROY Attorney at Law 75 Public Square, Suite 714 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2078 - 3 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J.: Defendant-appellant, Brenda Campbell, timely appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search of appellant's residence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The pertinent testimony adduced at the suppression hearing is as follows: Detective Willie Young of the Cleveland Police Department testified that the police had received numerous complaints of drugs being sold at the address of 3434 East 137th Street, Cleve- land. On December 26, 1989, after months of surveillance of the home, he made a purchase of one rock of cocaine at that resi- dence. The rock of cocaine was tested by the Scientific Identi- fication Unit and came back positive. With this information, Det. Young had a search warrant issued, which was signed by Judge Nugent on December 27, 1989. The search warrant affidavit listed the address of the residence as 3474 East 137th Street instead of 3434 East 137th Street. It described the residence as ". . . a single family residence, west side of 137th, a yellow one and one-half frame structure . . .." Det. Young testified that the affidavit - 2 - correctly described the side of the street and the color and size of the residence at 3434 East 137th Street. Det. Young executed the search warrant at the address of 3434 East 137th Street on December 28, 1989. He testified he was very familiar with that residence based upon his long-time sur- veillance of 3434 East 137th Street and numerous complaints about that residence. During the search, appellant was found in an upstairs bedroom in possession of a straight shooter pipe with cocaine residue. Appellant was subsequently indicted for viola- tion of the drug law (R.C. 2925.11). Based upon the above testimony, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress the evidence. Appellant pled no contest to the indictment. Appellant now timely appeals her conviction, raising one assignment of error for our review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT BRENDA CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS THE RESULT OF A SEARCH MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT AT 3434 EAST 137TH STREET. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an in- valid search warrant. Appellant contends that the warrant is invalid because a number "7" was incorrectly typed instead of a number "3," making the street address "3474" instead of "3434." This argument is without merit. In determining if a warrant particularly describes the place to be search as required by the Fourth Amendment, courts consider - 3 - ". . . whether the description is sufficient to enable the exe- cuting officer to locate and identify the premises with reason- able effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premises might be mistakenly searched which is not the one intended to be searched under the search warrant." Common- wealth v. Rugaber (Mass. 1976), 343 N.E.2d 865, 867; Steele v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 498, 503. In the present case, the warrant correctly described with particularity the premises to be searched. Thus, the officers were not bound by the incorrect street address. Moreover, the executing officer, Detective Young, knew the particular home described in the warrant since he had made a purchase of cocaine two days earlier from that home and intended to obtain a search warrant for that home. Thus, there was no danger that another premises might be mistakenly searched which was not the one in- tended to be searched under the search warrant. Under these circumstances, we find that the search warrant was sufficient despite the inaccurate address. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress the evidence. Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this ap- peal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, J. ECONOMUS, J.* CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY *Sitting by Assignment: Peter Economus, Judge of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .