State v. Jenkins , 2018 Ohio 4814 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2018-Ohio-4814.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 28736
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
BENJAMIN O. JENKINS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR-2016-02-0455-B
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 5, 2018
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Benjamin Jenkins appeals his drug-related convictions in the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Detective Chris Carney was inspecting packages at a Federal Express facility with
his K9 partner Cruiser when they intercepted one containing 1440 grams of methamphetamine.
Posing as a Federal Express driver, Detective Carney delivered the package to its intended
address, where it was accepted by Edna Chandler. She took it into her home and sent a text
message to Mr. Jenkins to let him know it had arrived. Mr. Jenkins replied that he would pick it
up at 1:00 p.m. A short time later, Ms. Chandler left the residence with a large purse, so law
enforcement officers stopped and searched her. They did not find any of the drugs on her, and
learned that she had merely received the package for Mr. Jenkins. At the request of law
enforcement, Ms. Chandler sent another message to Mr. Jenkins, asking him to come earlier than
2
they had arranged. Upon his arrival, officers stopped and arrested him. They subsequently
searched his home and found several jars containing marijuana.
{¶3} The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Jenkins for aggravated trafficking in
methamphetamine, aggravated possession of methamphetamine, trafficking in marijuana, and
possession of marijuana. The first two counts included major drug offender specifications. A
jury found him guilty of the offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to 11 years imprisonment
after determining that he was a major drug offender. Mr. Jenkins has appealed, assigning seven
errors. Because he has argued some of the assignments of error together, this Court will address
them together.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
FOUND MR. JENKINS GUILTY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUCH FINDINGS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
MR. JENKINS’ CONVICTIONS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶4} Mr. Jenkins argues that the evidence against him was insufficient and that his
convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Whether convictions are supported
by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution:
An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind
of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is
whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution,
3
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶5} If a defendant asserts that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the
evidence,
an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). Weight of the evidence pertains to the
greater amount of credible evidence produced in a trial to support one side over the other side.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, at 387. An appellate court should only exercise its power to
reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence in exceptional cases. State v.
Carson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26900, 2013-Ohio-5785, ¶ 32, citing Otten at 340.
{¶6} Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Mr. Jenkins argues that he could not be
convicted of trafficking the contents of the package because it was never in his possession,
noting that he never touched it or its contents. He notes that, although Ms. Chandler sent him a
text message telling him that “it” was here, there was nothing in the message to identify what “it”
was or that he and Ms. Chandler had the same understanding. He also argues that there was no
evidence establishing that he knew what was in the package. He further argues that there was no
evidence that he has any connections in Arizona, which was where the package originated.
{¶7} Mr. Jenkins acknowledges that a search of his home uncovered firearms and
thousands of dollars in cash. He argues that his ownership of the firearms was legal, however,
and that the mere possession of money is not evidence of wrongdoing. He notes that Ms.
Chandler, on the other hand, admitted illegally selling prescription drugs and accepted the
4
package at her home even though it was not addressed to her. He argues that Ms. Chandler also
knowingly lied to law enforcement.
{¶8} Mr. Jenkins’s arguments are limited in scope and confined to his
methamphetamine-related offenses, so we will likewise confine our analysis to the arguments he
has made regarding those offenses. The jury found Mr. Jenkins guilty of aggravated trafficking
of methamphetamine under Revised Code Section 2925.03(A)(2) and aggravated possession of
methamphetamine under Section 2925.11(A). Section 2925.03(A)(2) provides that no person
shall knowingly “[p]repare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or
distribute a controlled substance * * * when the offender knows or has reasonable cause to
believe that the controlled substance * * * is intended for sale or resale by the offender or another
person.” Section 2925.11(A) provides that no person shall knowingly “obtain, possess, or use a
controlled substance * * *.” “Possess” means “having control over a thing or substance * * *.”
R.C. 2925.01(K). It may be actual or constructive. State v. McShan, 77 Ohio App.3d 781, 783
(8th Dist.1991).
{¶9} Ms. Chandler testified that she received a previous package for Mr. Jenkins after
he asked her whether she wanted to make some money. At the time, he told her that the package
was going to contain parts for a karaoke machine. On the day it was expected to arrive,
however, Mr. Jenkins warned her that “if you think the scene look hot, don’t get it * * *.”
According to Ms. Chandler, the day after the package arrived, Mr. Jenkins gave her $200 for
waiting for it. She testified that it would have been $400, but she had owed Mr. Jenkins $200.
{¶10} “One cannot escape criminal liability by acting through agents.” State v.
Williams, 117 Ohio App.3d 488, 493 (1st Dist.1996). We note that the trial court instructed the
jury on complicity, explaining that someone who “knowingly aids, abets, solicits, procures,
5
conspires, supports[,] assists, engages, cooperates with, advises, incites, or associates himself
with another for the purpose of committing * * * the commission of a crime is to be regarded as
if he were the principal offender[.]” See R.C. 2923.03(A). Viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the State, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rationale trier of fact
to find that Mr. Jenkins knowingly had methamphetamine shipped to Ms. Chandler’s residence
and that he constructively possessed the drugs. See State v. Shinholster, 9th Dist. Summit No.
25328, 2011-Ohio-2244, ¶ 24 (concluding evidence was sufficient to uphold drug trafficking and
possession convictions because defendant arranged for and monitored the arrival of the package,
directed the recipient of the package what to do upon receiving it, and was awaiting actual
possession of the package when police arrested him); State v. Bowerman, 9th Dist. Medina No.
13CA0059-M, 2014-Ohio-4264, ¶ 13. Mr. Jenkins’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} Regarding the weight of the evidence, Ms. Chandler admitted selling certain
prescription drugs, but denied selling methamphetamine. Her testimony that she merely received
the package for Mr. Jenkins was supported by her text message to him shortly after she accepted
the package. Even though the “it” was not identified in her message, Mr. Jenkins’s reply did not
express any uncertainty as to what Ms. Chandler meant. When law enforcement searched Ms.
Chandler’s residence, they found the package still sealed and just inside her front door, which
was consistent with her testimony that it belonged to someone else who would be coming to
collect it.
{¶12} “[T]he weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are
primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of
the syllabus. “In reaching its verdict, the jury was in the best position to evaluate the credibility
of the witnesses and it was entitled to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness.”
6
State v. Shank, 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0104-M, 2013-Ohio-5368, ¶ 29. Upon review of the
record, we cannot say that the jury lost its way when it chose to believe Ms. Chandler’s
testimony. Mr. Jenkins’s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DID
NOT SUPPRESS THE CELL PHONE EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN
COLLECTED PRIOR TO OBTAINING A WARRANT AND BEFORE
MIRANDIZING DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF MR. JENKINS’
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
{¶13} Mr. Jenkins next argues that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to
suppress. A motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact:
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. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial
court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.
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.
(Internal citations omitted.) State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8.
{¶14} According to Mr. Jenkins, at the time of his arrest, multiple officers surrounded
his vehicle with their weapons drawn. After they removed him from the vehicle, they searched
him and found three phones. Before advising him of his Miranda rights, the officers asked him
for the passwords to the phones, which he provided. Mr. Jenkins argues that the court should
have suppressed any evidence found on the phones because he was not adequately advised of his
rights.
{¶15} Following a hearing on Mr. Jenkins’s motion to suppress, the trial court found
that the phones were not searched until after law enforcement obtained a search warrant. It,
therefore, concluded that the information on the phones “would have been inevitably obtained[,]”
7
even if the officers improperly obtained Mr. Jenkins’s password at the time of his arrest. Mr.
Jenkins has not challenged the trial court’s determination on appeal. We also note that Mr.
Jenkins has not identified any evidence recovered from his phones that was used against him at
trial. Accordingly, any error by the trial court in denying his motion to suppress was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670, 675 (1998).
Mr. Jenkins’s third assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND PLAIN
ERROR WHEN IT FOUND MR. JENKINS WAS A MAJOR DRUG
OFFENDER.
{¶16} Mr. Jenkins next argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that he was a
major drug offender. He argues that the jury was required to make that determination but the
court released the jury before it did.
{¶17} Section 2941.1410 provides that, “[e]xcept as provided in sections 2925.03 and
2925.11 of the Revised Code, the determination by a court that an offender is a major drug
offender is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the
offender specifies that the offender is a major drug offender.” Section 2925.03(C)(1) provides
the offense level for trafficking offenses involving a schedule II drug such as methamphetamine.
It provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds one
hundred times the bulk amount * * * aggravated trafficking in drugs is a felony of the first
degree, the offender is a major drug offender, and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison
term the maximum prison term prescribed for a felony of the first degree.” R.C.
2953.03(C)(1)(f). Section 2925.11 contains a comparable provision regarding aggravated
possession of methamphetamine. R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(e). See also R.C. 2929.01(W).
8
{¶18} The jury found Mr. Jenkins guilty of aggravated trafficking in drugs. It also
found that the amount of the drugs involved equaled or exceeded 100 times the bulk amount of
methamphetamine. Similarly, it found Mr. Jenkins guilty of aggravated possession of drugs and
found that the amount of the drugs equaled or exceeded 100 times the bulk amount of
methamphetamine. Once the jury made those findings, Mr. Jenkins became a major drug
offender by operation of Sections 2925.03(C)(1)(f) and 2925.11(C)(1)(e). See State v. Marbury,
9th Dist. Summit No. 25158, 2010-Ohio-5989, ¶ 30. Upon review of the record, we conclude
that the trial court did not violate Mr. Jenkins’s right to have the jury decide an essential element
of his case.
{¶19} Mr. Jenkins also argues that he could not be sentenced as a major drug offender
because, under Section 2929.01(W), a major drug offender is someone who has been “convicted
of” an offense. R.C. 2929.01(W). He argues that someone has not been “convicted of” an
offense until he is both found guilty and sentenced for it. According to Mr. Jenkins, because he
had not been sentenced for any qualifying drug offenses at the time the trial court classified him
as a major drug offender, the classification was incorrect.
{¶20} Although the term “conviction” normally includes both a finding of guilt and a
sentence, that is not always the case. State ex rel. Watkins v. Fiorenzo, 71 Ohio St.3d 259, 260
(1994). For example, in Fiorenzo, the Ohio Supreme Court considered a statute that provided
that someone “who is convicted of or pleads guilty to” theft in office was disqualified from
holding any public office. Id. at 259-260. The Supreme Court, noting that only a guilty plea was
required to invoke the sanction, concluded that the word “convicted” in the statute “logically
refers only to a determination of guilt and does not include sentencing upon that determination.”
Id. at 260.
9
{¶21} Similar to the statute at issue in Fiorenzo, Section 2929.01(W) provides that a
major drug offender is an offender “who is convicted of or pleads guilty to” certain drug
offenses. In this context, we conclude that the phrase “is convicted of” refers only to a finding of
guilt, not a finding of guilt and a sentence. To accept Mr. Jenkins’s construction of R.C.
2929.01(W) would lead to “unreasonable or absurd results[.]” State v. Dues, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 100861, 2014-Ohio-5276, ¶ 55 (rejecting argument that “is convicted of” language in
Section 2929.01(W) refers to both a finding of guilt and a sentence). We, therefore, conclude
that the trial court did not err when it sentenced Mr. Jenkins as a major drug offender. Mr.
Jenkins’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN AND REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT ADMITTED CALLS BETWEEN MR. JENKINS AND HIS WIFE AS
EVIDENCE DUE TO THE PREJUDICIAL NATURE AND HEARSAY.
{¶22} Mr. Jenkins next argues that the trial court incorrectly admitted jail calls that he
had with his wife. According to Mr. Jenkins, the calls should have been excluded under
Evidence Rule 403(A) because they were more prejudicial than probative. He argues that his
wife was the predominant speaker during the calls and that she mainly described what happened
when law enforcement searched their home, which did not involve him. They also discussed
which attorney Mr. Jenkins should hire. Mr. Jenkins notes that, while he admitted messing up to
his wife, there was no way for the jury to determine whether he meant that he messed up by
being a drug dealer, getting arrested, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr.
Jenkins also argues that his wife’s part of the conversation was hearsay.
{¶23} Regarding Mr. Jenkins’s hearsay argument, this Court has held that, when the
telephone conversations of a defendant are admitted, the statements of the defendant are
10
admissions and, therefore, by definition, not hearsay. State v. Townsend, 9th Dist. Summit No.
27316, 2015-Ohio-1124, ¶ 13. The statements of the other speaker also are not hearsay if “they
were admitted simply to provide context” for the defendant’s statements. Id. The trial court in
this case instructed the jury that it could not consider the statements of Mr. Jenkins’s wife for the
truth of the matter asserted but to consider them in context and to explain the statements and
reactions of Mr. Jenkins.
{¶24} Regarding Mr. Jenkins’s argument that the conversations were more prejudicial
than probative, it does not appear from the record that he preserved that argument for appellate
review. State v. Reed, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18076, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3751, *7 (Aug. 20,
1997), citing Evid.R. 103(A)(1). Accordingly, because Mr. Jenkins forfeited this argument and
has not developed a plain-error argument on appeal, we decline to address whether the calls
should have been excluded under Rule 403(A). State v. McCallum, 9th Dist. Medina No.
08CA0037-M, 2009-Ohio-1424, ¶ 19. Mr. Jenkins’s fifth assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
THE PROSECUTION ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT AND PREJUDICIAL
BEHAVIOR DURING CLOSING AND SUCH WAS REVERSIBLE AND
PLAIN ERROR.
{¶25} Mr. Jenkins also argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing
argument. In deciding whether a prosecutor’s conduct rises to the level of prosecutorial
misconduct, a court determines if the prosecutor’s actions were improper, and, if so, whether the
defendant’s substantial rights were actually prejudiced. State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14
(1984). “[A] judgment may only be reversed for prosecutorial misconduct when the improper
conduct deprives the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Knight, 9th Dist. Lorain No.
03CA008239, 2004-Ohio-1227, ¶ 6. “The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial,
11
not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, ¶
140, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982).
{¶26} Mr. Jenkins argues that the prosecutor misrepresented the idea of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt when he drew a gas gauge with a line at approximately 75% full and suggested
that the jury’s confidence in a defendant’s guilt only had to reach that line. Mr. Jenkins also
argues that the prosecutor inappropriately compared him to a Mafia Don who ordered a murder
or the getaway driver for a bank robbery. The prosecutor also opined that someone who is
addicted to methamphetamine would not be able to feed their children and would endure other
hardships from which Mr. Jenkins was profiting. Mr. Jenkins argues that the prosecutor further
incited the passions of the jury by claiming that he was distributing poison to people and was
responsible for the heartache of drug addicts.
{¶27} The State argues that it was Mr. Jenkins who introduced the idea of a gas gauge
and that the prosecutor was merely correcting Mr. Jenkins’s misrepresentation of reasonable
doubt. It notes that Mr. Jenkins compared proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the bar on the
gauge immediately before full and said that there could only be “a teeny tiny bit of doubt[.]”
The prosecutor, on the other hand, acknowledged that there is no algorithm or mathematical
formula for beyond a reasonable doubt and told the jury that it would have to follow the judge’s
instructions. The State also argues that the line that the prosecutor drew on the gas gauge was
higher than 75%. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the prosecutor’s statements about
the gas gauge and his drawing of it did not constitute misconduct.
{¶28} Regarding the comparisons that the prosecutor made, it is clear from the record
that the prosecutor was merely providing examples that might be more familiar to the jury, in
which someone could be considered responsible for a crime even though he never fired a gun or
12
touched stolen money. We agree with the State that the examples were appropriate illustrations
of the concepts of constructive possession and complicity.
{¶29} Regarding the prosecutor’s statements about Mr. Jenkins profiting off drug
addicts and about the hardships that drug addicts endure, we note that the State sought forfeiture
of thousands of dollars that law enforcement found at Mr. Jenkins’s home. The State theorized
that the money had to be the proceeds of Mr. Jenkins’s drug sales since he and his wife made
moderate wages at their jobs. This Court has reviewed the prosecutor’s statements and
concludes that they were not improper and did not deprive Mr. Jenkins of a fair trial. Mr.
Jenkins’s sixth assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE TRIAL COURT’S ERRORS DENIED
MR. JENKINS A FAIR TRIAL.
{¶30} Mr. Jenkins’s final argument is that, even if the above alleged errors could be
considered harmless error, his convictions should be reversed under the cumulative error
doctrine. “Under the cumulative error doctrine, a conviction may be reversed when the
cumulative effect of errors deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even
though none of the errors, in isolation, was prejudicial.” State v. Boone, 9th Dist. Summit No.
26104, 2013-Ohio-2664, ¶ 38, citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragraph two
of the syllabus. If there were not multiple errors, however, the cumulative error doctrine does
not apply. State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 132. Upon review, we
conclude that, because there were not multiple instances of error, the cumulative error doctrine
does not apply. State v. Brooks, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23237, 2007-Ohio-1424, ¶ 40. Mr.
Jenkins’s seventh assignment of error is overruled.
13
III.
{¶31} Mr. Jenkins’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, P. J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
14
APPEARANCES:
DENISE FERGUSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.