State v. CargileState v. Cargile
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Cleveland L. Cargile, appeals from his conviction for illegally conveying drugs onto the grounds of a detention facility in violation of
{¶ 2} The evidence presented by the State at trial revealed the following. On March 10, 2007, an individual waiting at a bus stop near Tower City in Cleveland was assaulted twice by a group of young men. After the assaults, his cell phone was missing from his pocket. When the police responded to the scene, the individual and his friend identified Cargile, as he was walking out of Tower City, as one of the assailants. The police arrested Cargile, handcuffed him, and patted him down. The pat-down failed to reveal any weapons or contraband.
{¶ 3} The police then transported Cargile to jail for booking and detention. Prior to entering the jail, one of the police officers admonished Cargile that conveying drugs into the jail would be a crime and advised him that he should tell the officer if he had any contraband. Cargile denied that he had any contraband on his person.
{¶ 4} An officer then escorted Cargile into the jail and began the booking process. Another officer searched Cargile. The officers saw Cargile move his right leg during the pat-down, allegedly so the officer would avoid making contact with that
{¶ 5} Cargile was charged with two counts of robbery, in violation of
{¶ 6} In his third assignment of error, which we find dispositive, Cargile contends that the trial court erred in denying his
{¶ 7}
{¶ 9} It is undisputed that the marijuana found in the cuff of Cargile’s pant leg when he was brought to jail is a drug of abuse as defined by
{¶ 10} Under
{¶ 11} Cargile argues that, on these facts, he cannot be convicted of illegally conveying drugs into the jail, because his act was not voluntary, as required by
{¶ 12} In State v. Sowry, 155 Ohio App.3d 742, 2004-Ohio-399, the Second District Court of Appeals considered a similar situation. The defendant in that case was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest and a pat-down failed to reveal any weapons or contraband. At the jail, the defendant was asked whether he had any drugs on his person, and he responded negatively. A more thorough search at booking revealed a baggie of marijuana in his right front pants pocket.
{¶ 14} The Second District held that “at most, [the defendant] might be charged with knowing that drugs were on his person when officers conveyed him to jail. However, *** the law will not punish for a guilty mind alone. Because [the defendant’s] conduct with respect to the
{¶ 15} This court adopted the reasoning of Sowry in State v. Lee, Cuyahoga App. No. 89087, 2007-Ohio-5952, reversed on other grounds, State v. Lee, Cuyahoga App. No. 89087, 2008-Ohio-143.
{¶ 16} Despite the State’s argument that this case in different than Sowry, we find no distinction between the two cases. Accordingly, the trial court erred in
{¶ 17} Appellant’s third assignment of error is sustained. Our resolution of the third assignment of error renders the other assignments of error moot. See
{¶ 18} Having sustained the third assignment of error, we reverse and vacate Cargile’s conviction for violation of
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR