State v. Hensgen
101 N.E.3d 76
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 6, 2016, Wade J. Hensgen was indicted for illegal manufacture of methamphetamine (2nd-degree), aggravated possession of methamphetamine (2nd-degree), possession of heroin (5th-degree), and aggravated possession of fentanyl (5th-degree). Charges arose after Hensgen was found overdosed in his mother’s detached garage; EMS administered Narcan to revive him.
- Deputies responding observed in plain view a syringe near Hensgen and a mason jar on a workbench that deputies and a narcotics agent believed was an active one‑pot methamphetamine lab; deputies evacuated the area for safety and called the narcotics unit.
- The narcotics agent took a sample from the mason jar (which later tested positive for methamphetamine), dismantled the lab, and discovered additional methamphetamine‑manufacturing items and suspected drugs in the garage.
- Hensgen moved to suppress the seized items, arguing the officers’ entry/search violated the Fourth Amendment because he was incapable of giving consent; the trial court denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances and plain‑view seizure lawful.
- After a three‑day jury trial, Hensgen was convicted of illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, aggravated possession of methamphetamine, and possession of heroin (acquitted of aggravated possession of fentanyl), merged convictions for sentencing, and received an aggregate five‑year prison term with three years postrelease control.
- Hensgen appealed raising: (1) suppression error, (2) sentence excessive/unsupported by record, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officers' entry and search (motion to suppress) | State: officers lawfully entered to render emergency aid; plain view and exigent circumstances justified seizure | Hensgen: incapable of consenting; officers had no warrant and exigency ended once he was removed | Denied suppression: emergency aid justified entry; plain‑view observation and exigent circumstances excused warrant requirement |
| Validity of plain‑view/seizure of meth lab evidence | State: officers were lawfully on scene and observed contraband in plain view | Hensgen: observation/search exceeded permissible scope after aid rendered | Held plain‑view doctrine applies where officers lawfully present; seizure lawful |
| Sentence length and support in record | State: sentence within statutory range and supported by criminal history and circumstances | Hensgen: five years excessive and unsupported by record | Affirmed: sentence within statutory limits, proportionate, and supported by record (prior convictions, community control status, danger posed) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable; multiple counsel substitutions did not show prejudice | Hensgen: counsel performance deficient; multiple counsel prevented relationship and adequate defense | Denied: no showing of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; strategy and substitutions insufficient to establish ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for motions to suppress)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (plain‑view seizure when officers lawfully present)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review and modification of sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (no constitutional right to a ‘meaningful relationship’ with counsel)
- State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001) (trial strategy decisions ordinarily not grounds for ineffective assistance relief)