State v. Gutierrez, 2019 Ohio 4626

Cooperating informant (A.P.), a convicted drug trafficker on community control, was found with 5 grams of cocaine and $4,000; he agreed to cooperate with Medway agents and wear a wire.
Through recorded calls and texts, A.P. arranged to buy cocaine purportedly from Victor Gutierrez; a controlled buy occurred where A.P. paid K.O. $600 and recovered a "brick" of cocaine weighing 140.45 grams supplied by the investigation.
On two separate, surveilled occasions A.P. paid Gutierrez cash totaling $3,900 and $1,500 (money provided and documented by Medway).
Gutierrez was indicted for first-degree trafficking and possession of cocaine with Major Drug Offender specifications; trial court granted a Crim.R. 29 acquittal on possession but convicted Gutierrez as complicit in trafficking and found the MDO specification true.
Trial court sentenced Gutierrez to a mandatory 11-year prison term and a $10,000 fine; he appealed raising (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance for failure to object to "other acts" testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support trafficking conviction (complicity/aiding and abetting)	State: Recorded calls, texts arranging the sale, surveillance of controlled buy, and two large cash payments to Gutierrez establish he aided/encouraged the trafficking and shared criminal intent.	Gutierrez: No evidence he was present at the Wendy’s buy or on the phone during the transaction; insufficient proof he participated in the charged sale.	Court: Overruled — viewing evidence in favor of the prosecution a rational trier of fact could find Gutierrez complicit; presence not required; amount >100g supports MDO.
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to A.P.’s testimony about prior drug buys	State: No direct argument — maintains evidence lawfully considered; admission of prior acts did not prejudice result.	Gutierrez: Counsel was deficient for not objecting to prior-deals testimony (other-acts evidence), and any prejudice from that testimony undermines the verdict.	Court: Overruled — counsel presumptively competent, failure to object is trial strategy; appellant failed to show deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (establishes de novo sufficiency-of-the-evidence review standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (defines the sufficiency inquiry and the standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (sets the elements for complicity/aiding and abetting and that intent may be inferred from circumstances)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (frames deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Scott, 69 Ohio St.2d 439 (1982) (holding that a "link in the chain of supply" can constitute an offer to sell under Ohio law)
State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146 (1968) (presumption that a trial judge in a bench trial considers only competent, material evidence)