State v. Washington
| Docket Number | 22 MA 0128,22 MA 0129 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 4735 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARELL A. WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Appellant Jarrell A. Washington appeals his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for possession of cocaine. Appellant argues that the conviction is against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. The record reflects that Appellant was the driver and sole occupant of a vehicle in which 29 grams of cocaine were found in a box hidden in the undercarriage of the vehicle. Based on the circumstances of the stop, including a phone call Appellant made to his brother prior to the stop, there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction and the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
{¶2} At approximately 8:40 p.m. on November 1, 2021, Beaver Township Officer Christopher Albert observed a 2007 Dodge Charger on Market Street in North Lima, Ohio, that had overly dark tinted windows. Officer Albert checked the license plate of the vehicle and found that the owner, Devonte Clay, had a suspended license. Another vehicle, a maroon Ford sedan, was following very closely behind the Dodge Charger, blocking Officer Albert from pulling behind it. The officer assumed the two cars were together. He turned on his cruiser lights and siren, and forced his way behind the Dodge Charger and in front of the Ford sedan. The Dodge Charger eventually pulled over and stopped. The other car continued on, then circled back and parked about 25 yards away, watching what was occurring with the traffic stop.
{¶3} Appellant was the driver and sole occupant of the Dodge Charger. Officer Albert told Appellant the reason for the stop. The officer asked Appellant if he was the registered owner, and Appellant stated that "he was not the registered owner and he did not have a driver's license, that he was suspended." (8/29/22 Tr., p. 211.) Appellant also said that he had picked up the car for his brother Devonte Clay at the impound lot in Tiffin, Ohio (a three-hour drive away). Officer Albert asked if he could search the vehicle, and Appellant said yes. The officer found a puppy, dog food in the passenger compartment, and a box of plastic sandwich bags in the trunk.
{¶4} Officer Albert told Appellant that the vehicle had to be towed to a tow company lot since Appellant did not own the vehicle and had a suspended license. The officer told Appellant to leave the keys in the vehicle; that Appellant would not have access to the vehicle after it was towed; and that only the registered owner could retrieve the vehicle. Officer Albert gave Appellant a traffic citation, and Appellant walked over to the Ford sedan and got in. The Ford sedan stayed at the scene for five or ten minutes more, and left with Appellant prior to the Dodge Charger being towed.
{¶5} Gobel's Towing arrived to tow the vehicle. While it was being lifted onto the tow trunk, Nick Gobel spotted a box magnetically attached to the underside of the vehicle in the passenger side front wheel well. Officer Albert opened the box and found 29 grams of cocaine inside.
{¶6} The next day, Detective Datillo of the Beaver Township Police drug task force began investigating the circumstances of Appellant's traffic stop to determine whether charges should be filed. On November 2, 2021, a criminal complaint with one count of possession of cocaine was filed against Appellant in Mahoning County Court, Area 5. Appellant was arrested on November 3, 2021. His initial hearing was on November 5, 2021. Bond was set at $25,000. The case was bound over to the Mahoning County Grand Jury. {¶7} Appellant was indicted on December 30, 2021, on one count of possession of cocaine, R.C. 2925.11 (A), (C)(4)(e), a first degree felony. Jury trial was held on August 29, 2022. The state presented four witnesses: Officer Christopher Albert; tow truck operator Nicholas Gobel; Anna Petro of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI"); and Detective Anthony Datillo.
{¶8} Officer Albert testified that he found a box of plastic sandwich bags in the trunk of the vehicle, and that sandwich bags were commonly used for possession of controlled substances. He testified that the magnetic box found under the vehicle was a "narcotics hide box" commonly used to transport illegal narcotics. (8/29/22 Tr., p. 218-219.) He also testified that Appellant took the car keys with him even though he was told to leave them in vehicle. His testimony also included the circumstances of the second car following Appellant's vehicle.
{¶9} Nicholas Gobel, the tow truck driver, testified that he found the black magnetic box under the vehicle while loading the vehicle onto the tow truck. He also testified that after he had returned to his tow lot after towing the Dodge Charger, Appellant called him and asked if he could "come remove something he forgot to remove" from the vehicle. (8/29/22 Tr., p. 274.)
{¶10} Detective Datillo of the Beaver Township Police drug task force testified that he was aware that the owner of Dodge Charger, Devonte Clay, was incarcerated in the Mahoning County Jail. He looked into jail phone calls and found that Appellant had called Clay on November 1, 2021 at 5:19 p.m., approximately three hours before Appellant was stopped by Officer Albert. Det. Datillo obtained a recording of that call. On the recording Appellant can be heard to say that he just picked up the vehicle from the impound lot and that he was worried about what would happen if the car was stopped by the police and was towed.
{¶11} Det. Datillo also testified about a call Appellant received in jail on November 4, 2021, made by an unknown woman. On that call, Appellant and the woman were discussing his case and Appellant made remarks about talking to "the cops" and getting "that shit" flushed down the toilet. The recording is of poor quality and it is difficult to hear most of the dialog, much less the context in which Appellant's statements were made.
{¶12} Appellant called Vicki Bartholomew from BCI to testify that no identifiable prints were found on the narcotics lock box. She testified that only about 40% of the 2,700 fingerprint submissions to BCI involve prints that are sufficient for analysis. She further testified that fingerprints on an object may degrade or be destroyed by many factors, including being exposed to heat, cold, rain, dirt and dust, airflow, or anything else that occurs outside in the elements.
{¶13} Following trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Appellant was sentenced on November 2, 2022. The court determined that Appellant had previously been found guilty of first degree felony possession of cocaine. The court sentenced Appellant to seven to ten-and-one-half years in prison. The court filed its judgment entry on November 4, 2022. Appellant's counsel filed a timely appeal on December 5, 2022, Appeal No. 22 MA 0128. The appeal was filed on the 31st day after judgment because December 4, 2022, was a Sunday. Appellant filed his own pro se notice of appeal on the same day. The two appeals were consolidated on January 10, 2023.
{¶14} Appellant asserts two related assignments of error on appeal that will be treated together.
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS UNSUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶15} Appellant's argument involves both the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence against him at trial. These are distinct but related legal concepts. "Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question dealing with adequacy." State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App.3d 548 2010-Ohio-617, 929 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 49 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). "Sufficiency is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether a case may go to the jury or whether evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Draper, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 07 JE 45, 2009-Ohio-1023, ¶ 14, citing State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486, 124 N.E.2d 148 (1955). When reviewing a conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court does not determine "whether the state's evidence is to be believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would support a conviction." State v. Rucci, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 34, 2015-Ohio-1882, ¶ 14, citing State v. Merritt, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 09-JE-26, 2011-Ohio-1468, ¶ 34.
{¶16} In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, the evidence and all rational inferences are evaluated in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 138, 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998). A conviction cannot be reversed on the grounds of sufficiency unless the reviewing court determines that no rational juror could have found the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
{¶17} Weight of the evidence concerns "the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other." (Emphasis deleted.) Thompkins at 387. It is not a question of mathematics,...
To continue reading
Request your trial