State v. Chandler
Decision Date | 04 December 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 57731,57731 |
Citation | 560 N.E.2d 832,54 Ohio App.3d 92 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CHANDLER, Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Because R.C. 2925.12(A) was clearly enacted to reach criminal possession and control of a syringe and classified such conduct as a misdemeanor of the second degree under R.C. 2925.12(C), R.C. 2923.24, a general statute prohibiting possession and control of criminal tools and classifying such conduct as a fourth degree felony, cannot be used to charge and convict a person of possessing and controlling a syringe. (State v. Volpe [1988], 38 Ohio St.3d 191, 527 N.E.2d 818, paragraph two of the syllabus, followed.)
2. A person's mere presence in an area of high crime activity does not suspend the protections of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Beverly J. Pyle, Asst. County Public Defender, for appellant.
On December 14, 1988, appellant, George P. Chandler, along with a co-defendant, was indicted by a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury under a four-count indictment charging one count of violation of R.C. 2925.11 (possession of cocaine); one count of violation of R.C. 2925.11 (possession of Talwin); one count of violation of R.C. 4729.51 ( ); and one count of violation of R.C. 2923.24 ( ). In the possession-of-criminal-tools count, the state alleged that appellant "possessed or had under [his] control a substance, device, instrument or article with purpose to use it criminally, to wit: syringes." Appellant was found not guilty on the three drug possession counts, but guilty of the fourth count, possession of criminal tools. On April 6, 1989, Judge Patricia A. Cleary sentenced appellant to an eighteen-month prison term.
On April 12, 1989, appellant's counsel moved the court for resentencing, asserting that: "[s]ince Mr. Chandler was found guilty of possession [of] syringes only, the maximum penalty that should have been imposed was ninety (90) days in jail under R.C. 2925.12, 'possessing drug abuse instruments.' ". The trial judge summarily denied appellant's motion.
On appeal to this court, appellant requested we set bond pending disposition of the case. Appellant argued that he "should have been found guilty of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12, a misdemeanor of the second degree, and not of possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24, a felony of the fourth degree." Appellant cited State v. Volpe (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 191, 527 N.E.2d 818, in support of his argument. This court denied appellant's request for bond and subsequently denied appellant's request for reconsideration.
On August 7, 1989, appellant initiated an action for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Upon receipt of the respondent's return of writ, the action was referred to a United States Magistrate for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B), Title 28, U.S.Code and Loc.R. 19.08. The magistrate, in a detailed, thorough report, found that "there is not the slightest doubt that the petitioner in this action in habeas corpus has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, violation of federal constitutional guarantees. * * * " The magistrate stated:
The magistrate recommended that the court enter an order granting appellant relief in habeas corpus and directing that he be released forthwith. The United States District Judge adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate in almost all parts. The court ordered that the petition for habeas corpus be held in abeyance pending the petitioner's exhaustion of state remedies. The court ruled, however, that the appellant's motion for bail be granted and that he be released upon posting an unsecured appearance bond.
This case is now before the court on direct appeal of appellant's conviction and sentence. Appellant assigns the following three errors for review:
We will start our discussion with appellant Chandler's third assignment of error.
Appellant is absolutely correct in his position that his alleged possession of syringes could not be punished as anything other than a misdemeanor under R.C. 2925.12 and could not constitute possession of criminal tools under R.C. 2923.24. 1 Appellant rightly concludes that his conviction under R.C. 2923.24 must therefore be vacated.
R.C. 2923.24 (possessing criminal tools) provides in part:
R.C. 2925.12 ( ) provides in part:
In State v. Volpe (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 191, 527 N.E.2d 818, the Supreme Court discussed the interaction between R.C. 2923.24 (possessing criminal tools) and R.C. 2915.02(A)(5), which criminalized as a misdemeanor the possession of any gambling device with intent to engage in gambling activities. The defendants in Volpe had been convicted under R.C. 2923.24. The Supreme Court ruled the felony convictions under R.C. 2923.24 could not stand in light of the specific misdemeanor offense defined in R.C. 2915.02(A)(5). In reversing the convictions, the court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jones
...v. Texas (1979), 443 U.S. 47, 51-52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357; Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d at 65, 630 N.E.2d 355; State v. Chandler (1989), 54 Ohio App.3d 92, 97, 560 N.E.2d 832. An appellate court views the propriety of a police officer's investigative stop or detention in light of the tota......
-
State v. Caldwell
...insufficient to render an officer's suspicions about criminal activity or the possession of weapons reasonable. State v. Chandler (1989), 54 Ohio App.3d 92, 97, 560 N.E.2d 832; State v. Bird (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 156, 551 N.E.2d 622; State v. Jackson (1989), 52 Ohio App.3d 156, 157; State ......
-
State v. Westover
...Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51–52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); Carter at 65, 630 N.E.2d 355; State v. Chandler, 54 Ohio App.3d 92, 97, 560 N.E.2d 832 (8th Dist.1989). “[A]n investigatory stop is not justified solely because the detention occurred in an area where there is a signi......
-
State v. Lang, s. C-950912
...in nature do not become specifically criminal in character because they occur in a high-crime area. Carter, supra; State v. Chandler (1989), 54 Ohio App.3d 92, 560 N.E.2d 832; State v. Martin (Jan. 25, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14275, unreported, 1995 WL Since I believe (1) that the encoun......