State v. Kamleh
2012 Ohio 2061
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kamleh was convicted by jury of receiving stolen property and possession of criminal tools in Cuyahoga County.
- Wal‑Mart employee Williams ran a scheme to steal cell phones and sell them; Kamleh bought them below market value.
- Police arrested Kamleh in a buy/bust after Williams cooperated and implicated Kamleh.
- Police later searched Kamleh’s car without a warrant and later sought/received a house search warrant.
- Kamleh argued the arrest and searches were unlawful and challenged the sufficiency of evidence.
- Trial included 404(B) evidence from Flowers and multiple challenges to jury instructions and counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless arrest and subsequent car search validity | State: probable cause supported arrest; car search justified by probable cause | Kamleh: no purchase, no possession of stolen property; searches invalid | Arrest and car search affirmed as valid under probable-cause standards |
| Sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property | State showed Kamleh took possession or retained stolen phones | Kamleh claimed no knowledge phones were stolen | Sufficient evidence showed possession/retention of stolen property under statute |
| Admissibility of Evid.R. 404(B) other-acts evidence | Flowers’ testimony showed knowledge/intent related to scheme | Evidence too remote and prejudicial | Admissible; not reversible error given substantial corroboration and defense impact |
| Failure to give accomplice/other-acts jury instructions; plain error | Instruction absence not plain error given corroboration and credibility instructions | Needed specific accomplice/404(B) charging | No plain error; instruction omissions were harmless |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel and interpreter issues | None specified beyond claims raised on appeal | Counsel ineffective for certain questions; interpreter issue inadequate | Most claims fail; some concerns addressed; not demonstrating prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (grounds for warrantless arrest in presence of offense)
- Watson v. United States, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (probable cause for felony arrest in public place)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (exigent circumstances for home entry in arrest)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause standard for arrest)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception to search without warrant)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (scope of warrantless vehicle searches after arrest)
- Belton v. New York, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (interior car search when arrested in probable connection to crime)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (sufficiency review standard for criminal verdicts; Jackson v. Virginia standard applied in Ohio")
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prohibition on comment on post-Maryland silence for impeachment)
- State v. Cotton, 113 Ohio App.3d 125 (1996) (404(B) evidence limits; relevance and propensity concerns)