State v. Tannert
2016 Ohio 7046
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Brandon Tannert sold MDMA to an informant working with an ATF undercover agent during a buy-bust.
- During the same transaction the agent arranged (via the informant) to buy a firearm from Tannert; Tannert initially refused but then negotiated price and sold the gun.
- Tannert was charged with drug trafficking and drug possession; each count carried a one-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.141(A).
- At trial Tannert asserted entrapment, arguing the government improperly combined a lawful firearm sale with the illegal drug sale to manufacture a firearm specification.
- The trial court rejected entrapment; the court of appeals affirmed, holding entrapment is not a defense to a sentencing enhancement and there was no evidence of improper government misconduct to justify relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entrapment can defeat a firearm specification | State: firearm spec is a sentencing enhancement; entrapment inapplicable | Tannert: government induced him to possess/sell the gun to trigger the spec | Court: entrapment defense does not apply to sentencing enhancements; affirmed |
| Whether government misconduct ("sentencing manipulation") occurred | State: agent lawfully learned of gun and sought to remove it from the street; no misconduct | Tannert: informant badgered/induced sale to create basis for enhancement | Court: record shows agent acted to obtain a gun off the street, no evidence of misconduct or sole purpose of enhancement |
| Whether lawful status to possess the firearm prevents the specification | State: lawful carry irrelevant; possession during offense satisfies spec | Tannert: licensed to carry, so sale was lawful and should not trigger spec | Court: specification applies regardless of legality of possession; mere possession during offense sufficient |
| Whether sentencing judge could decline to impose term for the spec | State: once spec proven, judge must impose statutory term | Tannert: trial court should have rejected spec based on entrapment/misconduct | Court: sentencing court had no discretion to refuse the mandatory spec term; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 1983) (defines entrapment: government originated design and implanted disposition)
- State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2015) (firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not a separate offense)
- United States v. Turner, 569 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses sentencing entrapment vs. sentencing manipulation doctrines)
- United States v. Parilla, 114 F.3d 124 (9th Cir. 1997) (federal example where entrapment can negate a sentence enhancement for gun possession)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (limits on sentence-enhancing facts and due process concerns referenced in dissent)