State v. Burns
2017 Ohio 7138
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Officers investigated two women attempting to buy pseudoephedrine at a Walgreens; one woman left behind an ID that identified Joanne Burns and gave a different address than where officers found her.
- Officers went to Burns’s residence at 739 Bowman; they obtained verbal consent to search after initially finding children home alone.
- Search of the basement produced items and reagents consistent with a one‑pot methamphetamine lab (bottles of liquid, tubing, peeled lithium batteries, Coleman fuel, cold packs, ammonia test positive).
- Burns was indicted for: Count 1 — illegal manufacture of methamphetamine (vicinity of a school zone and/or juvenile); Count 2 — possession/assembly of chemicals to manufacture methamphetamine (vicinity of a school zone and/or juvenile); Counts 3–4 — endangering children.
- Jury convicted on Counts 1 and 2 and on the juvenile specifications; Counts 3–4 (child endangering) were reversed on direct appeal for insufficient evidence that children were within 100 feet of the lab.
- Appellant reopened her appeal under App. R. 26(B) arguing insufficiency of evidence for the juvenile specifications and ineffective assistance for failing to raise sufficiency at trial and on original appeal; the court affirmed the juvenile specifications and rejected the ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for juvenile specifications (Counts 1 & 2) | The State argued children resided in and were present at the house during the search and the meth lab was in the basement visible from common areas, so offenses occurred "in the vicinity of a juvenile." | Burns argued the State failed to prove the offenses occurred within the juvenile’s view or within the statutory distance (and cited the reversal of child‑endangering counts). | Court held evidence was sufficient: juveniles lived in and were present at the residence, basement lab was accessible and in view from living areas; juvenile specifications proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not raising insufficiency re: juvenile specifications in Rule 29 motion | N/A (State) | Burns argued counsel performed deficiently by failing to move for acquittal on the juvenile specifications. | Court applied Strickland; found no prejudice because the juvenile specifications were supported by sufficient evidence, so ineffective‑assistance claim failed. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the insufficiency/ineffective‑trial‑counsel claims on original appeal | N/A (State) | Burns contended original appellate counsel’s omission warranted reopening under App. R. 26(B). | Court found no prejudice from appellate counsel’s omission because the underlying sufficiency and trial‑counsel issues lacked merit; claim denied. |
| Relevance of prior reversal on child‑endangering counts to juvenile specifications | State distinguished the different statutory elements and burdens for child‑endangering versus juvenile enhancement. | Burns argued reversal of child‑endangering undermined juvenile specifications. | Court explained statutory differences (child‑endangering requires proof of children within 100 feet of lab under that statute; juvenile specification is broader — within 100 feet or within view) and found juvenile specification satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161 (statute imposes strict liability for offenses committed in the vicinity of a juvenile; offender's knowledge irrelevant)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland two‑prong test)