State v. Granados
| Decision Date | 24 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-CA-50 |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 1758 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAMUEL D. GRANADOS Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
For Plaintiff-Appellee
GREGG MARX
Prosecuting Attorney
By: Andrea K. Green
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
For Defendant-Appellant
TODD BARSTOW
{¶1} Appellant Samuel D. Granados ["Granados"] appeals his convictions and sentences after a bench trial in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas on one count of trafficking in heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.03 and one count of possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(e).
{¶2} Sergeant Hamler of the Fairfield County Sheriff's Office received a tip from a Pickerington School Resource Officer that a student had discovered several marijuana plants growing in a field on the student's route home from school. Sergeant Hamler and Deputies Campbell and Williamson went to the location identified by the student, found the marijuana plants, and approached a nearby residence to inquire as to whether the occupants were aware of the plants. The male resident of the home told the officers that the marijuana plants belonged to his adult son, James Wolfe, who currently lived with his girlfriend, Nicole Marshall, in the basement of the residence. The officers confronted Wolfe and Marshall, who admitted to cultivating the marijuana plants. Upon receiving consent from the pair to search their living area in the basement of the premises, the officers found suboxone pills. Neither Wolfe nor Marshall had a prescription for the pills. The officers told Wolfe and Marshall that they could be facing felony charges, but that the officers would be willing to work with them if they were willing to cooperate with law enforcement.
{¶3} Wolfe and Marshall told the officers that they had served as a "middleman" for a dealer named "Sammy" who had supplied them with large amounts ofheroin on over five occasions in the past. Wolfe told the officers that he had previously worked with "Sammy," a Hispanic male at the Basement Doctor.
{¶4} Wolfe proceeded to describe the drug transactions with Granados to the officers. Wolfe related that Granados and another taller, thin, Hispanic male would always deliver the drugs to his residence in a light-colored SUV. Granados and his colleague would pull in the driveway of Wolfe's residence and wait for him to approach the vehicle where money would be exchanged for the heroin. On most of the occasions the heroin would be packaged in a DAP brand caulking tube.
{¶5} Wolfe agreed to call the phone number they had used in the past to set up a drug transaction. Wolfe called the number. When no one answered, he left a voice mail message. After several attempts, Wolfe eventually spoke to someone. Wolfe did not recognize the voice of that person as Granados. Wolfe arranged with that individual for a delivery of heroin that evening, between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m.
{¶6} Based upon this information, officers set up several "check points" en route to the residence in order to see if they could obtain probable cause to stop the SUV for a traffic violation. Officer Hamler stayed with Wolfe and Marshall at the residence. Officers identified an SUV matching Wolfe's description traveling in the direction of the residence, but could not identify any traffic violations for which to stop the vehicle.
{¶7} The vehicle turned into Wolfe and Marshall's residence at approximately 7:15 p.m. When the light-colored SUV pulled into the driveway, Wolfe and Marshall confirmed that the two Hispanic men occupying the vehicle were the men they were expecting. After the vehicle idled in the driveway for 30-45 seconds, several officersapproached the vehicle with their weapons drawn and ordered the two occupants to exit the vehicle and show "us your hands" (Supp. Hrg., Feb. 28, 2013 at 151-152). The occupants of the SUV were placed on the ground and handcuffed. (Id. at 153). The driver of the vehicle was a tall, thin Hispanic male, and the passenger was a shorter Hispanic male who produced a driver's license identifying him as Granados. The driver of the automobile was unable to provide officers with proper identification.
{¶8} Officers conducted pat-down searches of the pair, and placed them into separate police cruisers. Deputy Campbell and Deputy Williamson were able to see through the SUV's window a DAP-brand caulking tube in plain view on the floor behind the driver's seat. Officers removed the DAP-brand caulking tube from the vehicle and could immediately tell that something was not right, as the tube felt hard in some places yet empty in other places. The officers then cut open the caulking tube. Inside the caulking tube was a large object encased in black electric tape. The object was later determined to be a package of heroin in powdered form, totaling 76.3 grams. Both occupants of the vehicle were arrested and charged with possession and trafficking of heroin.
{¶9} The Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted Granados on September 7, 2012 on one count of trafficking in heroin and one count of possession of heroin, both felonies of the second degree. On February 28, 2013, the trial court conducted a hearing on Granados' motion to suppress evidence. By judgment entry filed March 21, 2013, the trial court overruled that motion.
{¶10} On March 26, 2013, Granados appeared in open court and acknowledged his waiver of a jury trial. The trial court immediately commenced a bench trial. On March27, 2013, the trial court found Granados guilty on both counts. On May 16, 2013, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. After merging the counts of conviction, the state elected sentencing on the trafficking charge. The trial court sentenced Granados to a term of six years incarceration.
{¶11} Granados raises two assignments of error,
{¶12}
{¶13}
{¶14} Granados contends that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶15} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to determine whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.; see also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 130 S.Ct. 665, 673, 175 L.Ed.2d582(2010) (reaffirming this standard); State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 926 N.E.2d 1239, 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶146; State v. Clay, 187 Ohio App.3d 633, 933 N.E.2d 296, 2010-Ohio-2720, ¶68.
{¶16} Weight of the evidence addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated by State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668, 1997-Ohio-355. Weight of the evidence concerns (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) at 1594.
{¶17} When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a "'thirteenth juror'" and disagrees with the fact finder's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id. at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). However, an appellate court may not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, but must find that "'the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.'" State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721(1st Dist. 1983).Accordingly, reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for "'the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.'" Id.
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 60, at 191-192 (1978).
{¶18} In the case at bar, Granados was found guilty of trafficking in heroin and possession of heroin.
{¶19} To prove Granados guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial