State v. Horton
2016 Ohio 8181
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- CODE Task Force used a confidential informant (CI) to target Robert D. Horton, Jr.; the CI contacted Horton Jr. through his father, Robert Horton, Sr., who facilitated two buys of ~28 grams each of a cocaine-containing substance.
- Proceeds of both transactions went to Horton Jr.; he was the intended target of the investigation.
- Indictment: two counts of trafficking in cocaine (one with forfeiture specification), initially first-degree felonies.
- Plea: Horton pled no contest to one count amended to third-degree trafficking and one count remaining a first-degree trafficking offense.
- Sentence: concurrent terms — mandatory 10 years on the first-degree count and 2 years on the third-degree count (aggregate 10 years).
- Appeal raises (1) proportionality/consistency of sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and (2) sufficiency regarding weight/purity of cocaine for elevated-degree trafficking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was inconsistent/disproportionate under R.C. 2929.11(B) | State argued court considered statutory purposes, defendant's recidivism, and other factors to impose a lawful sentence | Horton argued his sentence was harsher than his co-defendant (father) and therefore inconsistent with R.C. 2929.11(B) | Affirmed: sentence within statutory limits; trial court weighed factors appropriately; consistency does not require uniformity |
| Whether State had to prove purity/actual weight of cocaine (excluding fillers) to sustain elevated-degree trafficking | State relied on precedent treating whole mixture weight as quantity for penalty when identity and detectable amount are proven | Horton argued absence of quantitative purity testing meant only lowest-degree trafficking could be proven | Affirmed: Fifth District follows line holding entire mixture weight counts once identity/detectable controlled substance proven; no purity test required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 23 (1994) (appellate courts generally defer to trial court sentencing within statutory limits despite apparent disparity with co-defendant sentence)
- State v. Chandler, 109 Ohio St.3d 223 (2006) (legislature intended quantity of a controlled substance to include the whole amount even when mixed, if identity and detectable amount are proven)