State v. Bowers, 2017 Ohio 2726

Background

Appellant Tariq Bowers was indicted for two counts of trafficking (cocaine and heroin) after police executed a search warrant on Motel Room 105 and seized drugs, scales, packaging materials, two police scanners, ammunition, an M-11 owner’s manual/cutout, and Bowers’ driver’s license.
Room records showed the room registered in Bowers’ name for 27 consecutive nights, paid in cash; a copy of his brother Andre’s license also appeared in records but only Bowers was issued the key card and was seen at the motel frequently.
The motel manager discovered suspected cocaine in a bedside drawer on April 28, 2014; police surveilled, obtained a warrant, and recovered 39 crack bag tips and 5.3 grams of heroin, among other items; photographs taken during the search were later lost.
Bowers was seen breaking into Room 105 the day after the search; he stipulated to the presence of the drugs but contested that he was the trafficker and challenged evidentiary and prosecutorial matters at trial.
A jury convicted Bowers on both trafficking counts; the court imposed an aggregate eleven-year sentence (concurrent counts) with mandatory fines and post-release control.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of firearm-related exhibits	Items found in the room (manual, ammunition) are relevant to drug-trafficking context and probative of operation and intent	Evidence irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial because no weapons charge and may bias jury	Admission not plain error; probative value outweighed any prejudice
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s performance was within professional norms; objections and strategy were reasonable	Counsel failed to object timely to firearm exhibits, failed to call certain witnesses at suppression hearing, and filed inadequate suppression motion	No deficient performance shown or no prejudice demonstrated; claim rejected
Sufficiency / Manifest weight of evidence	Evidence (registration, key card, presence of license in room, drug packaging, scales, scanners, motel manager sightings) supports trafficking convictions beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence circumstantial and requires impermissible stacking of inferences; brother had access to room	Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight; inferences permissibly drawn without stacking
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Remarks were within proper advocacy and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial given strength of evidence	Prosecutor vouched for witness, shifted burden by citing failure to call brother, and impugned defense counsel	Some remarks improper but not prejudicial; no reversible misconduct
Sentencing legality	Trial court considered record and statutory factors; maximum sentences appropriate given criminal history and quantities	Court failed to adequately weigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors before imposing maximum sentences	Sentence not contrary to law; record reflects consideration of statutory factors

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard: any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland two-part test for ineffective assistance in Ohio)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (deference to factfinder in manifest-weight review)
Rogers v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error standard requires obvious deviation that affected outcome)
Grubb v. State, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 1986) (ruling on motion in limine is tentative and does not preserve error for appeal)