State v. West
2012 Ohio 6138
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Todd West was convicted by jury of drug trafficking and related offenses after investigation of Scranton Road property; forfeiture of property proceeded; appellate review challenged suppression, sentence, and forfeiture.
- Todd moved to suppress evidence from thermal-imaging flyovers and searches, and statements; court denied suppression on flyovers/searches and statements.
- Police surveilled the Scranton Road property on Nov. 3 and 5, 2010; marijuana plants were found in a locked warehouse; warrants were obtained for the building and Todd’s and Timothy’s homes.
- Forfeiture order sought to transfer two parcels at 2341 Scranton Road to a bona-fide purchaser; trial court found Todd and Timothy owned the property and that it was an instrumentality.
- Trial court denied Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal; jury found Todd guilty on all counts; sentence was 16 years with eight years consecutive for trafficking and manufacturing.
- On appeal, court affirmed the suppression ruling but reversed and remanded for merger of allied offenses and resentencing; forfeiture affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression ruling was procedurally proper | West argues failure to hold evidentiary hearing and lack of Crim.R. 12(F) findings | West contends suppression should be scrutinized for flyovers and searches | Assignment overruled; record supports denial of suppression opportunity and findings implied |
| Whether sufficient evidence supports trafficking conviction | State contends evidence showed trafficking readiness | West claims lack of proof of shipment/distribution | Conviction sustained; evidence viewed in light most favorable to State supports trafficking element |
| Whether maximum, consecutive sentences were proper | State argues statutory eight-year terms mandate consecutive terms | West asserts improper imposition without explicit fact-finding | Partially sustained; Kalish standard applied, but merger issue moots sentencing as to allied offenses |
| Whether trafficking and cultivation/manufacture counts should merge | State allowed separate conviction for dissimilar allied offenses | West argues allied offenses should merge | Merger required; counts merged, making consecutive sentence moot |
| Whether forfeiture of Scranton Road parcels was proper | State sought forfeiture of two parcels as instrumentality | Todd contends only one parcel identified in indictment | Forfeiture affirmed; two parcels properly identified and valued under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989) (great deference to magistrate’s probable cause finding in search warrants)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992) (probable-cause review accord deference to magistrate; de novo review not required)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (2010) (allied offenses—same conduct; single state of mind; merger guidance)