State v. Fonseca
2016 Ohio 7348
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Tony Fonseca was indicted for intimidation of a witness in a criminal case (R.C. 2921.04(B)(2)).
- Witness Schroeder reported to law enforcement in Nov. 2014 about drug activity and odors at Fonseca’s Clinton Street residence.
- Schroeder testified he observed suspicious activity and odors (marijuana, cat urine) and later received threats from Fonseca on Apr. 20, 2015.
- Jury found Fonseca guilty of the charged count on Jan. 4–5, 2016; judgment entry of conviction dated Jan. 5, 2016.
- Sentence imposed was 36 months in prison on Feb. 4, 2016; Fonseca timely appealed on Feb. 23, 2016.
- Appellate court affirmed, addressing sufficiency of evidence for witness definition and the reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the conviction supported by sufficient evidence. | Fonseca contends Schroeder wasn’t a witness under R.C. 2921.04(E). | Fonseca argues lack of knowledge of a criminal act by Schroeder undermines witness status. | Yes; Schroeder qualified as a witness under R.C. 2921.04(E) and evidence supported guilt. |
| Was the sentence of a maximum term unreasonable and unconscionable. | Fonseca claims no statutory factor justifies a maximum sentence. | Trial court properly weighed aggravating factors and Fonseca’s likelihood to commit future crimes. | No; within statutory range; record supports findings andMaximum term upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tatum, 2011-Ohio-3005 (3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-10-18, 2011-Ohio-3005) (sufficiency review standard for Crim.R. 29(A) judgments)
- Bridgeman v. Ohio, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio Supreme Court 1978) (sufficiency standard for review of evidence)
- Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981) (standard for reviewing whether evidence proves elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Brent, 2014-Ohio-5246 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-5246, 2014-Ohio-5246) (witness status possible where witness had knowledge of facts about a crime)
- State v. Gartrell, 2014-Ohio-5203 (3d Dist. Marion No. 9-14-02) (odor evidence can relate to drug activity supporting probable cause)
- State v. Price, 2013-Ohio-130 (6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-11-037) (odor/fact patterns linked to drug activity)
- State v. Cobb, 2004-Ohio-4944 (5th Dist. Stark No. 2003-CA-00412) (court considerations of drug activity indicators)