State v. Reglus
2012 Ohio 1174
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Deputy Buck found marijuana, $400, cash, and a scale in Reglus' Summit County apartment during a housing authority investigation.
- Reglus was charged with trafficking in marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Reglus moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the apartment search; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Reglus of trafficking and paraphernalia; the court convicted him of possession of marijuana and sentenced him to 12 months’ jail and a $150 fine (waived due to indigence).
- Reglus appealed, challenging the denial of suppression, sufficiency and weight of the trafficking conviction, and his sentence.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the apartment search lawful? | Reglus contends no consent to entry or search; Buck’s entry was unlawful. | Buck testified Reglus consented to entry and search; trial court credited that consent. | Overruled; search valid by consent. |
| Is the trafficking conviction supported by sufficient evidence? | State asserts evidence shows packaging for sale; reasonable inference supports trafficking. | Reglus disputes inference of intent to traffic from packaging and statements. | Overruled; sufficient evidence supports trafficking. |
| Is the trafficking conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State argues circumstantial evidence and witness credibility support a verdict of trafficking. | Reglus claims the evidence does not compel a finding of trafficking and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. | Overruled; not against the manifest weight. |
| Is the sentence for a fifth-degree felony clearly and convincingly contrary to law or an abuse of discretion? | State argues sentence within statutory discretion given factors and purpose of sentencing. | Reglus contends absence of clear findings and need for presentence investigation render the sentence improper. | Overruled; sentence affirmed as proper within discretion and statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (suppression review standard; credibility of trial court findings)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent; consent must be voluntary)
- Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial vs direct evidence probative value)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step felony sentencing analysis; standard of review)
- State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (2010-Ohio-1864) (scope of sentencing discretion; absence of presumption in community control)
- State v. Leonard, 8th Dist. No. 88299 (2007-Ohio-3745) (presentence investigation requirements; sentencing prerequisites)