State v. Little
2018 Ohio 2864
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 31, 2015, Toledo police conducted an undercover buy; officers allege Little sold a piece of a white powder substance and fled in his car, crashing and being arrested. Officers recovered three bags of white powder (46.23 g, 14.90 g, 6.52 g), pills, marijuana, and $2,000 from Little.
- Lab results identified the 46.23 g bag and the 6.52 g bag as benzocaine (a noncontrolled filler). The 14.90 g bag tested positive for benzocaine and cocaine hydrochloride, but the report did not state the purity or % cocaine in that bag.
- Little was indicted on multiple counts; he entered Alford pleas to amended Count 1 (trafficking in cocaine, R.C. 2925.03(C)(4)(e): ≥20 g but <27 g — charged as a second-degree felony after amendment) and Count 9 (failure to comply, third-degree felony). Eight counts were dismissed by the state.
- At plea hearing the state proffered that Little sold two ounces of cocaine to the undercover detective, that the detective saw Little break off a piece that contained a mixture of benzocaine and cocaine, and that the bags recovered weighed as above. Little knowingly, voluntarily waived trial rights and signed a plea form admitting guilt.
- Before sentencing, Little argued (relying on this court’s then-controlling Gonzales decision) that the state failed to prove the actual weight/purity of cocaine and thus the trafficking enhancement to a second-degree felony was unsupportable. The trial court rejected the challenge, finding Little waived evidentiary challenges by pleading guilty. Little appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Little could challenge the gram-weight/purity supporting the trafficking enhancement after an Alford plea | State: plea waived challenges to evidentiary sufficiency; factual proffer supported plea | Little: Gonzales (then-controlling) required proof of actual cocaine weight excluding fillers, so enhancement unsupported | Court: Plea (Alford) waives challenges to sufficiency of evidence; no plain error — defendant cannot rely on Gonzales to undo plea |
| Whether trial court erred in accepting Little’s Alford plea absent an adequate factual basis for a second-degree trafficking offense | State: proffered a basic factual framework (undercover buy, observed breaking piece containing cocaine, recovered bags and $2,000) | Little: proffer did not tie enough actual cocaine grams to him to support 2d-degree trafficking | Held: Court found plea knowing, voluntary, counsel present, adequate factual proffer; no plain error in accepting plea |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (recognizes a plea of guilty while maintaining innocence is permissible) (establishes "Alford plea" concept)
- State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2016) (initial Ohio Sup. Ct. holding that weight of actual cocaine, excluding fillers, must meet threshold)
- State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 2017) (reconsideration reversing prior Gonzales decision; total drug weight including fillers governs offense level)
- State v. Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92 (Ohio 1971) (factors for determining voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain error standard; notice of plain error to be applied cautiously)