State v. Nave
| Decision Date | 09 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-33 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 4850 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. MATT NAVE Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
OPINIONMARK FEINSTEIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0065183 and ROGER STEFFAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0086330, Prosecuting Attorneys, Champaign County Municipal Court, 205 South Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
BRYAN HICKS, Atty. Reg. No. 0065022, P.O. Box 359, Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Matt Nave, appeals from his conviction in the Champaign County Municipal Court after he pled no contest to one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. In support of his appeal, Nave contends that the explanation of circumstances offered by the State was insufficient to support his conviction. For the reasons outlined below, we disagree with Nave's claim and find that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Nave knowingly possessed drug paraphernalia with the purpose to use it to ingest illegal drugs. Therefore, because Nave's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was supported by the explanation of circumstances, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} On September 6, 2019, the State filed a complaint charging Nave with one count of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. On October 9, 2019, Nave entered a plea of no contest to the charge. After accepting Nave's no contest plea, the trial court reviewed a written statement of the circumstances surrounding Nave's arrest prepared by Officer Logan Dunn of the Urbana Police Department. The written statement provided the following information.
{¶ 3} On May 25, 2019, Officer Dunn was on patrol in the city of Urbana, Champaign County, Ohio. While on duty, Officer Dunn observed a 1997 Chevrolet truck pass his police cruiser on Talbot Street. After the truck passed by, Officer Dunn ran the license plate of the truck and discovered that the license plate was registered to a 2005 Jeep. Given this discrepancy, Officer Dunn initiated a traffic stop and approached the driver, who was identified as Nave.
{¶ 4} After identifying Nave through his driver's license, Officer Dunn advised Nave that the license plate on his truck was registered to a 2005 Jeep under the name Marcie Cano from Westerville, Ohio. In response, Nave stated that he had just bought the truck from a friend named Seth Little. Nave claimed that Little acted as the "middle man" and that the previous owner of the truck was Dakota Kelly from Springfield, Ohio.
{¶ 5} Nave thereafter provided Officer Dunn with the title to the truck. Officer Dunn reviewed the title and observed that it was not notarized and that it had a signature which appeared to be from Dakota Kelly. After reviewing the title, Officer Dunn asked Nave where he received the license plate. Nave responded that the license plate was on the vehicle when he purchased it. Sergeant Shawn Schmidt then arrived at the scene and advised Officer Dunn that Nave had had insurance on the vehicle for approximately six months.
{¶ 6} While speaking to Nave about the truck, Officer Dunn noticed that Nave was very talkative and moving around a lot. Officer Dunn also observed a knife on Nave's person. After observing the knife, Officer Dunn asked Nave if he had any weapons. Nave claimed that he did not have any weapons and took several items out of his pockets. Officer Dunn then checked Nave for weapons and felt a cylindrical object in Nave's pocket. When Officer Dunn asked what the cylindrical object was, Nave pulled the item out of his pocket. Officer Dunn identified the object as a red, cylindrical tube of an ink pen that contained a white, powdery substance. Based on his training and experience, Officer Dunn knew that hollowed out cylindrical items such as ink pens or straws are used to ingest or snort illicit drugs.
{¶ 7} Sergeant Schmidt also located a white, powdery substance on the blade of Nave's knife. Based on his training and experience, Officer Dunn knew that drug users use knives to cut small portions of illicit drugs into smaller pieces. Officer Dunn seized Nave's knife and the pen tube found in Nave's pocket and placed them inside his police cruiser.
{¶ 8} When initially questioned about the pen tube, Nave told Officer Dunn that he had found the pen tube in a parking lot of a Speedway gas station in Springfield, Ohio. However, upon further questioning, Nave told Officer Dunn that he had found the pen tube in the bed of his truck underneath the truck bed liner. Nave then advised Officer Dunn that the pen tube likely belonged to his girlfriend's brother. When Officer Dunn asked Nave why the pen tube was in his pocket, Nave stated that he simply picked it up and put it there.
{¶ 9} After conducting a consensual search of Nave's vehicle, Officer Dunn asked Nave to perform standardized field sobriety tests. Nave agreed, but he advised Officer Dunn that he had had many serious injuries including multiple strokes and a serious head injury from a car accident in 2016. Nave also advised Officer Dunn that he had suffered brain injuries and that his right side was comprised mostly of titanium. Nave, however, told Officer Dunn that he did not have any issues with his eyes.
{¶ 10} With this information in mind, Officer Dunn tested Nave and observed signs of impairment. For instance, during the modified Romberg test, Officer Dunn observed that Nave could not tilt his head back and that he had eyelid tremors. Then, during the walk and turn test, Officer Dunn noticed that Nave started the test before the instructions were completed, held his hands further than six inches away from his body to maintain balance, made incorrect turns, and stepped off the line as he was walking. Also, during the one-leg stand test, Officer Dunn observed that Nave had very rigid body posturing, held his hands further than six inches away from his body to maintain balance, and put his foot down three separate times before Officer Dunn could count to ten.
{¶ 11} Following the administration of the field sobriety tests, Officer Dunn field tested the white, powdery substance inside the pen tube. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine. The pen tube was sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI") for further testing. The BCI test results also came back positive for methamphetamine. Prior to entering his no contest plea, Nave indicated that he was not challenging the BCI test results and stipulated to the contents of the BCI report. There is no indication that the white, powdery substance on Nave's knife was ever tested.
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing information, the trial court found Nave guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court then sentenced Nave to serve 30 days in jail with 29 days suspended and one day of jail-time credit. The trial court also ordered Nave to pay a $250 fine and to serve one year of probation. Nave now appeals from his conviction, raising a single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 13} Under his assignment of error, Nave contends that the explanation of circumstances provided an insufficient basis for the trial court to find him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1). We disagree.
{¶ 14} "On a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense, R.C. 2937.07 provides that a court may find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on 'the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.' " (Footnote omitted.) State v. Wieckowski, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010-CA-111, 2011-Ohio-5567, ¶ 4. "Although R.C. 2937.07 does not define the phrase 'explanation of circumstances,' it requires evidence sufficient to demonstrate the accused's criminal liability for the offense charged." (Citation omitted.) State v. Osterfeld, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20677, 2005-Ohio-3180, ¶ 6. Therefore, the explanation of circumstances "necessarily, involves, at a minimum, some positive recitation of facts which, if the court finds them to be true, would permit the court to enter a guilty verdict and a judgment of conviction on the charge to which the accused has offered a plea of no contest." State v. Keplinger, 2d Dist. Greene No. 98-CA-24, 1998 WL 864837, *3 (Nov. 13, 1998); Osterfeld at ¶ 6. "Documentary evidence may suffice as an explanation of the circumstances supporting the charge, provided the record demonstrates that the trial court actually considered that evidence in determining Defendant's guilt or innocence." (Citations omitted.) State v. Mazzone, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18780, 2001 WL 1141822, *2 (Sept. 28, 2001). Accord State v. Schornak, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2014-CA-59, 2015-Ohio-3383, ¶ 11.
{¶ 15} "Appellate courts 'review the explanation of circumstances to determine if there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish all of the elements of the offense.' " State v. Hanson, 2019-Ohio-3688, 143 N.E.3d 1178, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. O'Brien, 5th Dist. Licking No. 17-CA-14, 2017-Ohio-7219, ¶ 35, citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 150, 459 N.E.2d 532 (1984). "In doing so, appellate courts utilize a de novo standard of review[,]" which requires an " ' "independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination." ' " Id., quoting State v. Clay, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2015-CA-17, 2016-Ohio-424, ¶ 5, quoting Jackson v. Internatl. Fiber, 169 Ohio App.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-5799, 863 N.E.2d 189, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 16} As previously noted, the explanation of circumstances for Nave's offense was set forth in a written statement prepared by Officer Dunn. The record indicates that after Nave entered his no contest plea, the trial court reviewed the written statement and found Nave guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial