State v. Levingston
2017 Ohio 7032
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Joshua Levingston, an inmate at Richland Correctional Institution, was indicted for one count of possession of Buprenorphine (Suboxone), a fifth-degree felony.
- Correctional Officer Brent Taylor conducted a strip search after receiving a tip from another inmate; the drugs were found in a slit in the fly of Levingston’s boxer shorts along with a paper containing numbers.
- Levingston confessed during a taped interview to hiding the drugs in his boxer shorts and did not claim they were planted.
- A jury convicted Levingston; the jury also found he had a prior drug conviction. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive to other cases.
- Post-conviction, Levingston (pro se) moved for a new trial arguing he was tried in prison clothing and shackled; he also sought disclosure of the confidential informant and sought a continuance to identify that informant. The trial court denied the motions; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identity of confidential informant must be disclosed | State: informant was a mere tipster; disclosure not required | Levingston: informant’s identity necessary to prepare defense | Court: Denied disclosure; informant was a tipster, not an active participant |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance | State: no need for continuance because disclosure denial was proper | Levingston: needed continuance to identify informant and prepare defense | Court: Denial not an abuse; no basis for continuance without disclosure |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | State: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice given confession and strong evidence | Levingston: counsel failed to preserve on-record rulings and failed to object to prison clothing/restraints | Court: Overruled — performance not shown prejudicial under Strickland |
| Whether proceeding while defendant wore prison clothing and restraints was plain error violating due process | State: no compulsion shown; no objection made; factual context (prison offense) made attire unsurprising | Levingston: attire and shackles prejudiced jury and denied fair trial | Court: No plain error; no evidence of compulsion and overwhelming evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1983) (identity of informant must be revealed when vital to defense)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (standard for review of denial of continuance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (state may not compel defendant to stand trial in identifiable prison clothing)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain error standard in criminal cases)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (new trial motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (abuse of discretion explained)