STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DERRICK D. BLASSINGAME, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-190555
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
February 17, 2021
2021-Ohio-426
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
TRIAL NO. 19CRB-9001. Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed.
Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Derrick D. Blassingame was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of
Procedural History
{¶2} On April 14, 2019, Blassingame was arrested and charged with failing to provide identifying information in violation of
{¶3} On June 5, 2019, Blassingame‘s newly-appointed counsel requested a continuance to prepare and obtain discovery, which the trial court granted. One month later, Blassingame‘s counsel asked for another continuance stating, “[W]e are getting discovery and wanted to check to see if there are any body cams or videos of this incident, and then we should be prepared to go forward.” The trial court granted the continuance.
{¶5} On August 14, 2019, Blassingame requested his fourth continuance because he was still waiting for certain discovery, namely the “911 call and CAD.”
{¶6} On August 21, 2019, the state responded to Blassingame‘s request for discovery and indicated that the body-camera video was “beyond the retention period.”
{¶7} On September 25, 2019, Blassingame requested his fifth continuance to hire a private attorney. Blassingame told the trial court that he was unhappy with his public defender because he had not prepared a defense and instead had relayed a plea offеr to him and advised him to take it. He then explained that he needed more time to obtain discovery, specifically the body-camera video, arguing that the prosecution was required to provide it to him. The trial court explainеd that the public defender was required to relay all plea offers to him and that simply because Blassingame did not like his trial counsel‘s advice, did not mean it was not good advice. The trial court then denied Blassingame‘s motion for a сontinuance because (1) Blassingame had the past five months to hire a private attorney and had not done so; (2) since his arrest more than two attorneys had been appointed to represent him; and (3) the court had previously continued the case four times at the defendant‘s request.
{¶8} After the court denied Blassingame‘s request for a continuance, the prosecution dismissed Charge A and reduced Charge B to disorderly conduct in violation of
Bench Trial
{¶9} At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of two police officers and Kim Wright, a volunteer at Planet Dance Studio.
{¶10} Wright testified that on April 14, 2019, she was volunteering at Planet Dance Studio, which is located at the corner of Gilbert Avenue and Sinton Avenue in the city of Cincinnati. She explained that the sidewalk was adjacent to the studio and curved around the front door. She testified that she had noticed articles of clothing flying around outside and observed Blassingame trying to catch them. She went outside and asked him if he was “okay.” He responded that he wаs fine, and she went back inside the dance studio. After speaking with parents who had entered the studio, she walked back outside and observed Blassingame now lying on the sidewalk, using the clothes as a pillow. She testified that she asked him to move, explaining that parents and children would be coming in and out of the studio, but Blassingame refused, insisting that “children should see the realities of homelessness.” Wright testified that she observed parents moving their vehicles past the designated drop-off spot so that the children exiting from the vehicles would not have to walk over Blassingame. Wright also observed a young dance student having to step off the curb and into the street to avoid stepping on Blassingame. Finally, Wright testified that she called the owners of the dance studio, who advised her to call 911.
{¶12} Police Officer William Keuper also testified that when responding to the scene, he had observed Blassingame lying across thе sidewalk with a pillow of clothes under his head.
{¶13} Blassingame testified in his defense. He admitted that the sidewalk was a public right-of-way, but he testified that he had been sitting on a pillow of clothes crossed-legged and not lying on the sidewalk. He testified thаt he had been waiting for a friend to come pick him up. He also testified that he did not recall telling Wright or the officers that he thought children should see “the realities of homelessness,” when they had asked him to move. He testified that he saw nо children enter or exit from the dance studio.
{¶15} Blassingame now appeals, bringing forth two assignments of error.
Motion to Continue
{¶16} In his first assignment, Blassingame argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant him a continuance to hire a private attorney so that he may obtain further discovery.
{¶17} We review a trial court‘s denial of a motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981). In Unger, the Supreme Court noted that in deciding whether to continue a proceeding, a trial court weighs any potential prejudice to the defendant against cоncerns such as the court‘s right to control its own docket and the public‘s interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice. Id. More specifically, when evaluating a motion for a continuance, the court should consider whеther other continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and any other relevant factors. Id. at 67-68.
{¶18} Here, the trial court noted that Blassingame had previously beеn appointed a different attorney at his request and had already received four continuances. Moreover, although Blassingame requested a continuance to obtain additional discovery, including the officer‘s body-camera video, granting a further continuance would not achieve Blassingame‘s stated goal. All discovery available
Sufficiency and Weight
{¶19} In his second assignment of error, Blassingame contests the sufficiency аnd weight of the evidence underlying his conviction. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and determining “whether a rational trier of fact could have fоund all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Barnthouse, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180286, 2019-Ohio-5209, ¶ 6. On the other hand, when reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonаble inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding the defendant guilty. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{¶20}
{¶22} With respect to the weight of the evidence, both officers as well as Wright testified that they had observed Blassingame lying across the sidewalk in front of the dance studio and not merely sitting cross-legged as he had claimed. Further, two of the witnesses observed children having to walk into the street to avoid stepping on Blassingame. In light of that testimony and the trial court‘s finding that the prosecution witnesses’ testimony was credible, we cannot say that the court created a manifest miscarriage of justice by finding Blassingame guilty of disorderly conduct.
{¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MYERS and BERGERON, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.