State v. Martin, Ca2007-01-022 (12-28-2007)State v. Martin, Ca2007-01-022 (12-28-2007)
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jeanie Gail Martin, appeals her convictions and sentence for aggravated possession of drugs and five misdemeanors in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
{¶ 2} Shortly after midnight on September 30, 2006, appellant‘s Camaro was traveling eastbound on Grand Ave. in Middletown. As the car turned onto Kensington Street, Middletown Police Officer John Hovell initiated a traffic stop after observing the illegally tinted
{¶ 3} The officer observed three pills on the rear passenger seat that were later identified as Vicodin. He asked for appellant‘s license and insurance information. According to the officer, she replied, “Oh, my God, you think I was driving?” The officer replied, “Yes, I do. And I saw the pills.” The officer required appellant to exit the vehicle and asked her about the pills. Appellant stated that they were Vicodin and that she had a prescription for them, but did not carry the bottle with her. Appellant then stated that her friend “Mike” was driving the car and she did not know why he ran. Upon inspection of appellant‘s purse, the officer discovered some Marijuana and a fourth Vicodin pill. The officer was then informed that appellant was under multiple driver‘s license suspensions, so he took appellant into custody for the suspensions and drug possession. Upon inspection of appellant‘s person, small plastic baggies were found in her pocket. Appellant stated that she had picked them up from her garage floor because she thought they belonged to “Larry.” Appellant was asked, “Who‘s Larry?” and she replied, “The guy that was driving the car.”
{¶ 4} Appellant‘s car was impounded and inventoried. Examination of the console around the gearshift revealed a compartment containing a baggie of 15.7 grams of Marijuana. A black zippered bag was also found containing a “crystal meth” pipe with white residue and six blue-colored baggies containing a total of 22.45 grams of “crystal meth.” A digital scale with some residue on it was found on the floor in front of the passenger seat. Further
{¶ 5} On November 23, 2005, appellant was indicted for aggravated possession of drugs in violation of
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY PERMITTING IN `UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL’ EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE RULE 404(B).”
{¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to exclude the testimony of Officer Bill Couch of the Warren County Drug Task Force. At trial, Officer Couch testified regarding the search conducted at appellant‘s residence and
{¶ 9} A trial court has broad discretion in the admission and the exclusion of evidence and unless it clearly abused its discretion and appellant is materially prejudiced thereby, an appellate court should not disturb the decision of the trial court. State v. Finnerty (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 109; State v. Craft, Butler App. No. CA2006-06-145, 2006-Ohio-4116, ¶ 48. Therefore, an appellate court confines its inquiry to a determination of whether the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in the admission or exclusion of evidence. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 23, 2002-Ohio-68.
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} Neither
{¶ 13} Appellant‘s statements to Officer Couch concerning her involvement with methamphetamine and other drug transactions are evidence of her knowledge relating to the possession of drugs including methamphetamine. Further, these statements also show evidence of her plan and scheme for drug possession.
{¶ 14} Appellant argues though that the trial court erred by failing to apply an “unfair prejudice” balancing test to this evidence under
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} “Evid.R. 403 speaks in terms of unfair prejudice. Logically, all evidence presented by a prosecutor is prejudicial, but not all evidence unfairly prejudices a defendant. It is only the latter that Evid.R. 403 prohibits.” Id. citing State v. Wright (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 5, 8.
{¶ 17} A review of the transcript clearly shows that the trial court examined the evidence in light of the
{¶ 18} Although appellant‘s statements admitting her dealings in methamphetamine were unfavorable, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to appellant. The evidence was probative of facts at issue in the case; specifically appellant‘s knowledge and plan. Accordingly, we find no abuse by the trial court in allowing Officer Couch‘s testimony.
{¶ 19} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 21} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, BY SENTENCING DEFENDANT TO SIX YEARS IN PRISON.”
{¶ 22} Appellant argues in her second assignment of error that the trial court erred by sentencing her to a more-than-the-minimum sentence. Appellant acknowledges that since the Ohio Supreme Court‘s decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, trial courts are granted discretion in imposing felony sentences within the statutory range; however, appellant argues that “a person with no prior criminal history should be given six years of mandatory prison.” [sic]
{¶ 23} This court has previously considered similar arguments in recent decisions and found them to be without merit. See State v. Cockrell, Fayette App. No. CA2006-05-020, 2007-Ohio-1372; State v. Kincer, Clermont App. No. CA2006-08-055, 2007-Ohio-3352; State v. Pesta, Clinton App. No. CA2006-02-004, 2007-Ohio-2295; and State v. Sheets, Clermont App. No. CA2006-04-032, 2007-Ohio-1799.
{¶ 24} Aggravated possession of drugs requires the imposition of a mandatory prison sentence between two to eight years. Appellant‘s six-year sentence is within the permitted range. Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
WALSH and POWELL, JJ., concur.