State v. Figuero
2019 Ohio 3151
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant John L. Figueroa was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of trafficking in cocaine (two other counts were dismissed); offenses occurred during controlled buys in Aug. and Oct. 2016.
- A confidential informant made four controlled purchases from Figueroa; the informant’s identity was disclosed to defense counsel the morning of trial.
- The arresting officer did not prepare the incident report until Aug. 2, 2017; the municipal complaint was filed Aug. 2017 and a grand jury indictment issued Nov. 20, 2017 (about one year after the offenses).
- Defense raised three issues on appeal: (1) discovery violation / informant testimony (Crim.R. 16), (2) preindictment delay causing prejudice, and (3) imposition of maximum sentence.
- Trial court sentenced Figueroa to concurrent 12‑month terms (maximum for a fifth‑degree felony); court noted it reviewed the presentence report and that defendant had prior felonies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Figueroa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by allowing the confidential informant to testify after late disclosure | State: complied with discovery; informant identity was provided to defense before testimony; no procedural motion was filed | Figueroa: state violated Crim.R.16(B)(2) by withholding informant’s identity and records, entitling him to continuance or dismissal | Court: no error — defense never moved to compel, continue, or dismiss; informant identity was provided and defendant failed to show prejudice |
| Whether indictment should be dismissed for preindictment delay | State: delay was not shown to have caused actual prejudice; no unjustifiable delay shown | Figueroa: ~1 year delay prejudiced defense because a downstairs neighbor (potential witness) died during the delay and could have tied him to informant | Court: no error — defendant failed to show actual prejudice from the neighbor’s death; dismissal not warranted |
| Whether maximum sentence was an abuse of discretion / contrary to law | State: incarceration appropriate given defendant’s record and PSI; sentence within statutory range | Figueroa: trial court made only cursory findings and failed to analyze R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Court: no error — court considered PSI and defendant’s criminal history; courts need not recite specific R.C. 2929.12 findings; sentence not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (preindictment delay requires showing of actual prejudice and a balancing of prejudice against state's reason for delay)
- State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2016) (unavailability of testimony that would attack state's evidence can establish actual prejudice from delay)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not make specific on-the-record recitations of each factor)