State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19CA23,19CA23 |
| Citation | 162 N.E.3d 898,2020 Ohio 5316 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Spanish M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Angela Miller, Jupiter, Florida, for appellant.
Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecutor, and W. Mack Anderson, Lawrence County Assistant Prosecutor, Ironton, Ohio, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Spanish M. Smith appeals his multiple drug trafficking convictions, two firearm specifications, and having a weapon under disability and contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements made to investigating detectives; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the two firearm specifications and his conviction for having a weapon under disability; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to 54.5 years in prison; and (4) his convictions for drug trafficking as set forth in count six of the indictment, the gun specifications, and having a weapon under disability were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶2} Smith argues that his waiver of his Miranda rights was coerced because after he expressly waived his Miranda rights, investigating officers told him that they were not gathering evidence or recording the interview when, in fact, they were. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Smith's motion to suppress because the investigators did not use coercive police tactics during the interview. Smith's waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary. We overrule Smith's first assignment of error.
{¶3} In his second and fourth assignments of error, which for ease we address together, Smith contends that his firearm specifications and having a weapon under disability conviction were not supported by sufficient evidence and that these convictions as well as his conviction on count six, fourth-degree trafficking in heroin, were against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that there was no evidence that the firearms were in "close proximity" to the drugs. However, law enforcement who monitored the controlled drug buys and executed the search warrant of the premises testified that the firearms were "within mere feet" of Smith when he was recorded selling heroin and methamphetamine to the confidential informant. We find that the firearm specification and having weapons under a disability conviction were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Upon review of the entire record, the trier of fact did not lose its way or create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that reversal of the conviction is necessary.
{¶4} Smith argues that his conviction on count six for trafficking in heroin was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the recording device malfunctioned and there was no audio/video recording of the first controlled buy. Smith contends that the only testimony of this transaction was the testimony of the confidential informant, who had credibility issues. However, the credibility of the confidential informant's testimony was bolstered by its consistency with the other four controlled buys, which were supported with audio/video recordings of Smith making these sales. Additionally, law enforcement's testimony concerning the first controlled buy was consistent with the confidential informant's testimony. We find that Smith's conviction on count six, trafficking in heroin, was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Upon review of the entire record, the trier of fact did not lose its way or create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that reversal of the conviction is necessary. Because Smith's firearm specifications, weapon conviction, and trafficking in heroin conviction under count six were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, they were necessarily supported by sufficient evidence. We overrule Smith's second and fourth assignments of error.
{¶5} Last, Smith contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to 54.5 years in prison.1 He argues that the record does not support the individual maximum sentences the court imposed for every offense. He does not contest the trial court's decision to run the sentences consecutively. We find that the imposed sentences are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record where it is established that Smith was a major drug offender with large quantities of money, heroin and methamphetamine and a violent criminal history. We overrule Smith's third assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶6} In March 2019, the Lawrence County Grand Jury indicted Smith on seventeen counts, including multiple drug trafficking counts, two firearm specifications, a forfeiture specification involving a cash sum of $33,385.00, and having a weapon while under disability. The indictment arose out of a number of controlled buys by which the Lawrence County Drug and Major Crime Task Force used a confidential informant and marked money to make purchases of heroin and methamphetamine from Smith on five different occasions, four of which were recorded.
{¶7} The state nolled the first five counts and the case proceeded to trial on the following: counts six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen – trafficking in heroin, fourth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(6)(c) ; count seven, nine, eleven, thirteen – aggravated trafficking in drugs, second-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(1)(d) ; count fifteen – trafficking in heroin, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(6)(g) ; two firearm specifications and a forfeiture specification to count fifteen; count sixteen – aggravated trafficking in drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(d) ; and count seventeen – having a weapon while under disability, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). Prior to trial Smith filed a motion to suppress statements he made to investigators during an interview on the ground that the waiver of his Miranda rights was coerced. The trial court denied the motion. A jury found Smith guilty of all counts and the trial court sentenced Smith to a 56-year prison term.
{¶8} Smith assigns the following errors for our review:
{¶9} In general "appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact." State v. Codeluppi , 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-1574, 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 7. "When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses." State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. "Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence." Id. " ‘Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.’ " Codeluppi at ¶ 7, quoting Burnside at ¶ 8.
{¶10} Smith challenged the use of his statements obtained after law enforcement executed a search warrant, arrested him, and brought him into the Lawrence County Prosecutor's Office for an interview. He concedes that he was properly informed of his Miranda rights at the beginning of the interview and voluntarily, expressly waived those rights. However, he argues that during the course of the questioning, he was told, Smith also argues that during the course of the questioning he asked if the interrogation was being recorded and he was falsely told that it was not. In his motion to suppress, Smith contended, "By telling the Defendant the statement was not being recorded and was not being used for evidence gathering, the State of Ohio used coercive tactics which invalidated the waiver previously signed by the Defendant because the Defendant was not aware the statements would be used to secure a conviction." He argued that, like the situation where the accused invokes his right to counsel and questioning must cease until a new waiver is procured, these statements also required law enforcement to obtain a new waiver.
{¶11} The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution provide that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in any criminal case. State v. Arnold , 147 Ohio St.3d 138, 2016-Ohio-1595, 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 30. "[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Smith, 19CA33
-
State v. Williams
...told the defendant that they were not gathering evidence or recording the interview when, in fact, they were. State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898 (4th Dist.). The appellate court concluded that the investigators did not use coercive police tactics during the interview. Id. at ¶ 2......
-
State v. Trego
... ... exist, the state must show that the defendant was conscious ... of the object's presence. Both dominion and control, and ... whether a person was conscious of the object's presence, ... may be established through circumstantial evidence ... (Citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, ... 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 36 (4th Dist.)." 'A ... defendant's mere presence in an area where drugs are ... located is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant ... constructively possessed the drugs.' * * * However, ... 'when one is the driver of a car in which drugs are ... ...
-
State v. Cutright, 21CA3749
... ... the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of ... sufficiency.'" State v. Lombardi, 9th Dist ... Summit No. 22435, 2005-Ohio-4942, ¶ 9, quoting State ... v. Roberts, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 96CA006462, 1997 WL ... 600669 (Sept. 17, 1997); State v. Smith, ... 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 30-32 (4th Dist.) ... {¶34} ... Because Cutright asserts that his convictions on the three ... felonious assault counts were against the manifest weight of ... the evidence, and the felonious assault convictions and ... endangering ... ...