State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 30 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | E-19-065 |
| Parties | State of Ohio Appellee v. Dashay Jones Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Derek A. Farmer, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} Appellant, Dashay Jones, appeals the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas convicting him following a jury trial, of one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(f), a felony of the first degree, with major drug offender and forfeiture specifications, and sentencing him to 11 years in prison. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On July 12, 2017, the Erie County Grand Jury returned a two-count indictment against appellant, charging him with one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(f), a felony of the first degree, and one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(4)(g), a felony of the first degree. Both counts included a major drug offender specification under R.C. 2941.1410(A), and a specification for forfeiture of $2, 270 under R.C. 2941.1417(A). The charges arose from a traffic stop on January 3, 2017, during which a large amount of cocaine was allegedly discovered in appellant's vehicle.
{¶ 3} On November 15, 2017, appellant moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the traffic stop arguing, inter alia, that the initial stop was unconstitutional, and that the stop was unconstitutionally delayed while a drug canine was brought to the scene.
{¶ 4} A suppression hearing was held over the course of four days on April 19, April 26, June 11, and July 16, 2018. At the suppression hearing, Sandusky Police Detective Ron Brotherton testified that on January 3, 2017, he was conducting surveillance on a motel in Huron Township, Ohio, as part of a joint investigation with the Erie County Sheriffs Department regarding suspected drug trafficking. During the surveillance, he observed appellant arrive to the motel driving a blue Chrysler minivan. Brotherton testified that appellant was under investigation as a large-scale cocaine trafficker in and around Sandusky, Ohio.
{¶ 5} Brotherton observed appellant enter the motel with only a cell phone in hand. Brotherton contacted the motel manager, who informed him that appellant was going in the direction of a room rented by Deona Green. Brotherton learned from Detective Adam West, a member of the narcotics task force, that Green is one of appellant's top phone contacts. Green is from Lima, Ohio, and Brotherton knew that appellant had connections in Lima. Brotherton testified that he also knew that appellant was transporting and trafficking a large amount of cocaine in and around Sandusky. Approximately 15 minutes after he entered, appellant exited the motel carrying a plastic bag that appeared to be full. Appellant entered his blue van and left the area.
{¶ 6} When appellant left, Brotherton and Lieutenant Danny Lewis of the Sandusky Police Department followed him in an unmarked police car. Brotherton testified that as appellant was travelling westbound on Cleveland Road, appellant committed several traffic violations in that his vehicle went over the double yellow line, then went over the solid white roadway edge line, and again touched the solid white lane divider line near Pipe Street. Brotherton testified that Lieutenant Lewis had called for a marked unit numerous times, but did not get a response. Consequently, Brotherton initiated a traffic stop on Cleveland Road near Farwell Street. Brotherton explained that appellant's father lived right around the corner, and he did not want appellant to get home before they had a chance to initiate a stop.
{¶ 7} The stop took place at 3:14 p.m. Brotherton testified that as he spoke with appellant, he observed that appellant was speaking softly and his eyes were extremely wide open. Brotherton described that it looked like appellant had seen a ghost. Brotherton also noticed that appellant was breathing at a rapid rate, his chest was rising and falling quickly, the carotid artery in his neck was beating rapidly, and his mouth appeared to become very dry. Brotherton testified that when he informed appellant of the numerous traffic violations as the reason for the stop, appellant apologized and said he was on his cell phone because his friend had just text messaged him to see if he wanted to work out.
{¶ 8} During the stop, at 3:29 p.m. the K9 unit arrived. Brotherton asked appellant for consent to search the car, which appellant denied. At 3:30 p.m., Brotherton had appellant roll up his driver's side window in preparation of having the drug canine conduct a free-air sniff The dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, at which point Brotherton asked appellant to step out of the car at 3:32 p.m. Brotherton then searched the car. In a "Stow 'n Go" compartment between the front seats and middle row of seats, the K9 officer discovered a black Crown Royal bag. Brotherton recovered the Crown Royal bag and found that it contained four bags of suspected cocaine and crack cocaine.
{¶ 9} On the second day of the suppression hearing, the K9 officer, Sandusky Police Officer Evan Estep, testified for the state. Estep testified that he arrived on scene with his trained narcotics dog Gunner. Estep had Gunner perform a free-air sniff around the vehicle during which Gunner gave his trained passive response to the presence of narcotics. Estep then assisted in the search of the vehicle with Brotherton, and by 3:37 p.m. they had located the presence of the suspected cocaine. Estep took the Crown Royal Bag, and in front of a car mounted camera, emptied the bag onto the hood of a patrol car revealing four separate bags of suspected cocaine.
{¶ 10} Appellant began his presentation of evidence on the third day of the suppression hearing. As his first witness, appellant called Carl Douglas Klein. Klein is a local photographer and videographer, and he authenticated videos and pictures that he took of the roadway near where appellant was alleged to have committed the lane violations, and of the motel where Brotherton had been conducting surveillance.
{¶ 11} Appellant's next witness was Alejandro Minor. Minor testified that on December 19, 2017-nearly a year after appellant was stopped and the drugs were discovered in his vehicle-he was giving a ride to appellant as a courtesy service as part of his automobile repair business. Minor testified that while he was driving appellant, he was pulled over by Brotherton, who was driving an unmarked silver Chevy Tahoe. Brotherton explained that Minor had committed the traffic violation of crossing marked lanes. Minor testified that he did not commit any such violation. Minor further testified that Brotherton looked right past Minor, and focused on appellant, who was sitting in the passenger seat. Brotherton asked for consent to search the vehicle, which Minor provided. Brotherton proceeded to search the car and in so doing "made a mess." Thereafter, Brotherton ended the encounter by issuing a traffic warning to Minor. Minor felt so upset by the encounter and by how he was treated by Brotherton that he filed a complaint with the Sandusky Police Department.
{¶ 12} Appellant then attempted to call several witnesses-out of purportedly scores of witnesses-that he claimed would have testified to numerous occasions on which Brotherton, while driving an unmarked vehicle, initiated traffic stops for marked lane violations or turn signal violations. Appellant asserted that those traffic stops were not based on actual violations, but instead were mere pretexts for Brotherton to further his drug investigations. Furthermore, appellant explained that he sought to introduce such testimony to prove that Brotherton was not telling the truth in the present case when he testified that appellant committed marked lanes violations. The state objected to appellant's presentation of those witnesses pursuant to Evid.R. 608(B), which states "Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in Evid. R. 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence." The trial court agreed, and sustained the state's objection.
{¶ 13} On the final day of the suppression hearing, appellant called Sandusky Police Lieutenant Danny Lewis as a witness. Lewis testified that on January 3, 2017, he was in Huron Township, surveilling a motel for suspected drug activity based on information from a source. While on surveillance, Lewis observed appellant arrive in a blue Chrysler minivan. Lewis testified that he recognized appellant from back when he played high school basketball and from around the town. Lewis also remembered appellant from a drug investigation that took place one or two years earlier where a large amount of cocaine was found in a gutter near appellant's residence. No one was arrested as a result of that investigation.
{¶ 14} Lewis testified that approximately 15 minutes elapsed between when appellant entered the motel and when he exited. After appellant exited the motel, Lewis and Brotherton followed him in their unmarked vehicle. Lewis testified that they were about four to five car lengths behind appellant when Lewis observed appellant's vehicle go across or touch the double yellow lines, and then touch the white lane divider line near Pipe Street.
{¶ 15} When the traffic stop was initiated, Lewis began the process of writing a written warning. Lewis testified that the unmarked car he was in did not contain...
To continue reading
Request your trial