State v. BakerState v. Baker
{¶ 1} Dеfendant-appellant, John Baker (hereinafter “Baker“) appeals the judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas finding him guilty of one count of Trafficking in Crack Cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 2} On May 1, 2002, Baker arrived at the Heritage Manor apartment complex in Kenton, Ohio with Doug Keen (“Keen“). Baker and Keen went to the apartment of Ginger Williams, to whom Keen had previously been married. According to Williams’ testimony, Baker and Keen agreed to pay Williams $300.00 so that she could pay her past due electric bill. In exchange, Williams would allow Baker and Keen to distribute crack cocaine from her apartment.
{¶ 3} On May 3, 2002 the Special Response Team of the Hardin County Sheriff‘s Department and the Kenton Police Department, acting on a call from another resident of Heritage Manor, went to Williams’ apartment and executed a search warrant. Upon еxecuting the warrant, the police found Baker, Keen and Williams in the apartment. The police recovered 31.89 grams of crack cocaine hidden in a doll in the living room of the apartment, a razor blade, a metal pipe believed to be used to smoke crack cocaine, .23 grams of crack cocainе in a plastic container in the kitchen and a box of sandwich bags, also found in the kitchen.
{¶ 4} Baker was arrested and taken to the Kenton Police Department for booking. During booking, officers recovered six rocks of crack cocaine in the pocket of a coat Baker was wearing, $923 in currency and $19 in quarters.
{¶ 5} On May 21, 2002 Bakеr was indicted by the Hardin County Grand Jury on one count of Trafficking in Crack Cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 6} Baker submitted a waiver of jury trial and a bench trial was held April 16-17, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the trial court, by judgment entry, found Baker guilty on all four counts of the indictment.
{¶ 7} On June 23, 2003, the trial court sentenced Baker to the mandatory prison term of ten years on Count 1, Trafficking in Crack Cocaine, and, pursuant to the specification, an additional five years; ten years for Count 2, Possession of Crack Cocaine; five years for Count 3, Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity; and twelve months for Count 4, Possession of Crack Cocaine. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, which resulted in an aggregate term of fifteеn years in prison.
{¶ 8} It is from this decision that Baker appeals, asserting three assignments of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
The trial court committed an error of law by finding the appellant guilty of an offense for which he was not indicted.
{¶ 9} Baker was indicted on one count of trafficking in crack cocaine in violation of
{¶ 10} In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus. The relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a rеasonable doubt. Id.
{¶ 11} The prohibition against preparing a controlled substance for distribution is contained in
{¶ 12} In the case sub judice, there is substantial evidencе in the record to support the trial court‘s finding of Baker‘s guilt as to trafficking in crack cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 13} Williams testified that she, Keen and Baker “got word trouble was on the way” and that Baker hid several large rocks of crack cocaine in a doll in her apartment. Police testified that the crack cocaine was contained in three separate plastic bags that were tied together around the waist of the doll, concealed by the doll‘s dress. The total weight of the crack cocaine found on the doll was 32 grams, worth approximately $1,500. Williams testified that minutes after Baker hid the crack cocaine in the doll, the police broke down the apartment door.
{¶ 14} Additional evidence produced at trial included a razor blade and a box of plastic sandwich bags recovered from the kitchen of Williams’ apartment. Police officers testified that the usual practice of selling crack cocaine is to use a razor blade to cut a large rock of crack cocaine into smaller rocks which are then packaged in plastic sandwich bags to be individually sold. Furthermore, uncontroverted witness testimony indicated that Baker did not use crack cocaine. This evidence could support the inference that Baker possessed the crаck cocaine for the purpose of distribution, rather than for personal use.
{¶ 15} We find, that upon the evidence in the record, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of trafficking, in violation of
{¶ 16} In a case tried without a jury the court is only required to make a general finding. See
{¶ 17} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
The trial court committed an error of law in finding the appellant guilty of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.
{¶ 18}
“Enterprise” includes any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust, union, government agency, or other legal entity, or any organization, association, or group of persons associated in fact although not a legal entity. “Enterprise” includes illicit as well as licit enterprises.
* * *
“Pattern of corrupt activity” means two or more incidents of corrupt aсtivity, whether or not there has been a prior conviction, that are related to the affairs of the same enterprise, are not isolated, and are not so closely related to each other and connected in time and place that they constitute a single event. * * * *
“Corrupt activity” means engaging in, attempting to engаge in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in any of the following: * * * any violation of section * * *
2925.03 * * * of the Revised Code * * * that is a felony of the first, second, third or fourth degree * * * when the proceeds of the violation * * * or the value of the contraband * * * possessed, sold or purchasеd in the violation exceeds five hundred dollars, or any combination of violations * * * when the * * * value of the contraband * * * possessed, sold, or purchased in the combination of violations exceeds five hundred dollars.
{¶ 19} At issue in the case sub judice is the requirement that a defendant engage in a “pattern of corrupt activity,” meaning two оr more predicate offenses constituting corrupt activity.
{¶ 20} Baker‘s indictment states “from on or about January 9, 2001 to on or about May 3, 2002” as the time period when the corrupt activity occurred. The indictment also states that the charge was basеd on “a continuing course of criminal conduct commencing in Allen County, Ohio, and ending in Hardin County, Ohio.” The Bill of Particulars contains essentially the same language. It states, “[d]efendant Baker has been involved in a pattern of corrupt activity, to wit: trafficking in crack cocaine in Allen County, Ohio and Hardin County, Ohio from on or about January 9, 2001 through on оr about May 3, 2002.”
{¶ 21} At trial, the State presented evidence to prove the existence of an enterprise from January 2001 to May of 2002. This evidence included witness testimony of drug transactions involving Baker that took place on February 6, 2001 and July 10, 2001, both in Allen County. The State also introduced evidence that in 2001 Baker sold crack cocaine from Keen‘s previous residence on Fairground Road in Hardin County.
{¶ 22} Witness testimony also established that selling drugs at Heritage Manor around the first of the month was a regular occurrence. Witnesses explained that someone would come from Allen County to Heritage Manor to sell drugs at the first of the month because that was the time residents recеived welfare, disability and social security checks.
{¶ 23} After reviewing the record and considering the evidence of the previous drug sales made by Baker in 2001 together with the evidence adduced at trial concerning the events of May 3, 2002 in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found Baker‘s involvement in the several transactions was sufficient proof of his involvement in an enterprise and a pattern of corrupt activity.
{¶ 24} Even if Baker‘s assertion that the trafficking and possession charges stemming from his May 3, 2002 arrest were so closely related in time and place that the two counts are a single event was to be aсcepted, there is additional evidence of previous sales made by Baker in Hardin County and Allen County which was considered by the trial court.
{¶ 25} Accordingly, Appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
The sentence of the trial court is contrary to law.
{¶ 26} An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed by a trial court unless clear and convincing evidence exists that the sentence is unsupported by the record, the procedure of the sentencing statutes was not followed, there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term, or that the sentence is contrary to law. See
{¶ 27} Baker was indicted for a violation of
[i]f the amount of the drugs involved * * * equals or exceeds twenty-five grams but is less than one hundred grams of crack coсaine * * *, trafficking in cocaine is a felony of the first degree and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of the first degree.
{¶ 28}
{¶ 29} Baker argues that the trial court failed to make the required findings under
{¶ 30} The trial court herein found it was required to impose a ten-year prison term for violation of
{¶ 31} Although Baker was not indicted with a major drug offender specification, pursuant to
{¶ 32} In reviewing the trial court‘s procedure on sentencing, we find that the trial court complied with
{¶ 33} Accordingly, appellant‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 34} Having found no error prejudicial to appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
Shaw,