State Of Ohio v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 10 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 93665,No. 93664,93664,93665 |
| Citation | 2011 Ohio 590 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. WILLIAM CHANDLER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
REVERSED AND REMANDED (NO. 93664)
AND
AFFIRMED (NO. 93665)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Assistant Public Defender
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutors
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, William Chandler, appeals his convictions and sentence in two cases: Case No. CR-505120 and Case No. CR-509920. This court has consolidated the appeals. After reviewing the record and pertinent law, we affirm the judgment in Case No. CR-505120, but reverse and remand the judgment in Case No. CR-509920 solely for thetrial court to hold a new sentencing hearing at which the state must elect which allied offense it will pursue against Chandler.
{¶ 2} In November 2007, the grand jury indicted Chandler in Case No. CR-505120 on five counts: drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2); drug possession, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A); carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2); having a weapon while under a disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3); and possessing criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). The drug counts carried firearm and forfeiture specifications, and the remaining counts carried forfeiture specifications. Chandler pleaded not guilty to the charges.
{¶ 3} In March 2008, the grand jury indicted Chandler in Case No. CR-509920 on eight counts: three counts of drug possession, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A); three counts of drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2); possessing criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A); and having a weapon while under a disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). These drug charges also had firearm and forfeiture specifications attached, and the remaining counts carried forfeiture specifications. Chandler pleaded not guilty to the charges, and Case No. CR-509920 proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶ 4} After the state presented its case to the jury in Case No. CR-509920, the trial court granted Chandler's Crim.R. 29 motion as to all firearm specifications and forfeiturespecifications relating to a digital scale, a firearm, and ammunition, all found in the apartment during the search, but not relating to $590 found on Chandler's person. The trial court further granted Chandler's Crim.R. 29 motion with respect to Counts 2, 5, and 8 (all counts relating to PCP possession and trafficking, and having a weapon while under a disability).
{¶ 5} At the close of all the evidence, the jury found Chandler guilty of Count 1, drug possession (crack cocaine), Count 3, drug possession (marijuana), and Count 4, drug trafficking (crack cocaine), but not guilty of Count 6, drug trafficking (marijuana), and Count 7, possessing criminal tools. As for the remaining forfeiture specifications relating to the $590 found on Chandler's person during the search, the jury found that it was not subject to forfeiture.1
{¶ 6} On the day of sentencing in Case No. CR-509920, Chandler withdrew his former not guilty plea in Case No. CR-505120 and pleaded guilty to one count of drug trafficking, with a one-year firearm specification and a forfeiture specification, carrying a concealed weapon, with a forfeiture specification, and having a weapon while under a disability, with a forfeiture specification. One count of drug possession and possessing criminal tools were dismissed.
{¶ 7} Immediately following the plea hearing, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for both cases. In Case No. CR-509920, the trial court sentenced Chandler to a total of five years in prison: five years on Counts 1 and 4, and three years on Count 3. The court then ordered that "counts to run concurrent with each other, and concurrent with Case CR-505120." Five years of postrelease control was also part of this sentence.
{¶ 8} In Case No. CR-505120, the trial court sentenced Chandler to a total of three years in prison: one year for the firearm specification, "to be served prior to and consecutive with" two years for drug trafficking, 18 months for carrying a concealed weapon, and two years for having a weapon while under a disability. The trial court then ordered that "counts to run concurrent with each other, and with Case CR-509920." The trial court further ordered that Chandler forfeit $1,238, $589, and a gun. Three years of postrelease control was also part of this sentence.
{¶ 9} Chandler appealed both cases, and this court consolidated the appeals. In Case No. CR-505120, he raises two assignments of error relating to his plea. In Case No. CR-509920, he raises nine assignments of error relating to his jury trial, conviction, and sentence.2 We will address these nine assignments of error first, and then address his two arguments relating to his plea.
{¶ 10} "[1.] There was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of any of the crimes of conviction because a reasonable juror could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the drugs found on the balcony porch.
{¶ 11} "[2.] The verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 12} "[3.] The trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that the possession of a substance was established if the defendant were proven to have knowledge that the substance was located on premises over which a defendant had control.
{¶ 13} "[4.] The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to allow the defense to file a motion to suppress immediately after the defense learned that a Fourth Amendment violation had taken place.3
{¶ 14} "[5.] The trial court plainly erred when it permitted the state to introduce evidence of the suspected but uncharged drug transaction that occurred eight days prior to the offense date in the indictment.
{¶ 15} "[6.] Mr. Chandler was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 16} "[7.] Counts one and four alleged allied offenses of similar import for which the defendant could only have been convicted of one offense.
{¶ 17} "[8.] The trial court denied Mr. Chandler due process of law when it sentenced him under the mistaken belief that the sentences in CR-50[9]920 and CR-505120 could be ordered to run concurrently.
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} Detective John Hall testified that in March 2008, he received complaints about drug trafficking reportedly taking place out of a house located at East 89th Street in Cleveland. He explained that the house had four separate units, "two in the front, and two in the back," with a common entrance on the side. Because of the complaints, he began surveillance of the house. He said that he observed "moderate foot and vehicle activity," at the location, where people would come, go inside, stay for a short period, and then leave. This activity indicated that "there [was] a possibility that drugs were being sold."
{¶ 20} Based on his observations, Detective Hall arranged for a confidential reliable informant ("CRI") to purchase drugs at the location. The "controlled buy" took place on March 18, 2008. Detective Hall testified that he observed the CRI approach a man (later identified to be Chandler) and "several other individuals" outside the home. Detective Hall then explained:
{¶ 21}
{¶ 22} Detective Hall then testified that the CRI "stayed in the house briefly and then exited through the same kitchen door, walked down the steps and exited from the common doorway on the side and returned directly" to Detective Hall with what appeared to be crack cocaine.
{¶ 23} Detective Hall stated that he continued to monitor the home after the controlled transaction. He observed Chandler "in the area of the arrest location conversing with unknown individuals." He also "observed people, individuals who would come up, converse with the defendant, and then leave shortly thereafter out of the area." Sometimes, "the defendant and these unknown individuals would go — again go inside the apartmentcomplex." Based on the "controlled buy," as well as continued surveillance of the area, Detective Hall obtained a search warrant on March 21, 2008, for the apartment in question.
{¶ 24} The search warrant was executed on March 26, 2008, by members of the SWAT team, Detective Hall, and other officers. Detective Hall explained how the police entered the apartment:
{¶ 25}
{¶ 26} Detective Hall further explained that "[d]etectives and uniformed...
To continue reading
Request your trial