State v. Land
2016 Ohio 5175
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Durain J. Land was indicted on first‑degree possession of heroin, first‑degree possession of cocaine, third‑degree trafficking in cocaine, and third‑degree tampering with evidence; some counts were later dismissed and he proceeded to trial on heroin possession and tampering.
- Police raided a residence after drug buys; officers identified Land throwing a bag out a window that later tested positive for heroin.
- At pretrial, the State agreed not to present prior bad‑acts evidence; Land moved to exclude other‑acts evidence and for speedy trial relief (motion denied).
- At trial, defense counsel’s cross‑examination prompted an officer to mention multiple residents involved in drug buys (including co‑defendants), which Land claims opened the door to excluded evidence; voir dire included juror comments suggesting potential misunderstanding of burden and adverse inference from silence.
- A jury convicted Land of possession of heroin (first degree) and tampering (third degree); the court sentenced him to 8 years (possession) and 24 months concurrent (tampering); postrelease control of five years was imposed and a statutory fine was waived for indigency.
- On appeal Land raised: ineffective assistance of counsel, that his sentence punished him for going to trial, and that his sentence was inconsistent with co‑defendants’ sentences. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance — counsel "opened the door" to excluded other‑acts evidence | State: multiple officers independently identified Land; trial strategy decisions are entitled to deference | Land: counsel’s question elicited testimony the State had agreed not to present and prejudiced him | No ineffective assistance; even assuming deficient performance, no prejudice because other officer testimony independently tied Land to throwing the heroin bag |
| 2. Ineffective assistance — counsel’s handling of voir dire (failing to remove two jurors) | State: counsel’s voir dire choices are strategic and within wide latitude | Land: counsel should have struck jurors who expressed unfair views about burden or silence | No ineffective assistance; counsel addressed jurors and instructed them on defendant’s right to remain silent; strategic choice entitled to deference |
| 3. Ineffective assistance — failure to object to prosecutor’s relevancy question about personal‑use amount | State: failure to show prejudice from any non‑objected question | Land: counsel should have objected; admission was harmful | No ineffective assistance; appellate court not persuaded Land proved prejudice |
| 4. Sentence: vindictive sentencing and proportionality with co‑defendants | State: sentence within statutory range and based on record factors; trial court not shown to have punished the exercise of trial rights | Land: sentence increased for taking case to trial and is disparate from co‑defendants’ sentences | Held: sentence (8 years) is within statutory range and not shown by clear and convincing evidence to be vindictive or inconsistent; appellate court affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (ineffective assistance standard: performance + prejudice)
- State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (definition of reasonable probability for prejudice)
- State v. O’Dell, 45 Ohio St.3d 140 (defendant cannot be punished for exercising right to trial)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Barr, 158 Ohio App.3d 86 (opened‑door issue where suppressed statement became admissible on re‑direct)
- State v. Scalf, 126 Ohio App.3d 614 (appearance of enhanced sentence for exercising trial rights is improper)