2005 Ohio 3604 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2005
{¶ 2} On May 10, 2003, Kenton City Police went to the home of Mendenhall, arrested him and executed a search warrant on his residence. Mendenhall's arrest was based on allegations that between February 23, 2001 through May 10, 2003, Mendenhall had been trafficking in crack cocaine.
{¶ 3} Following arrest, Mendenhall was indicted on two counts of Trafficking in Crack Cocaine, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On June 26, 2003, Mendenhall filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence alleging the search warrant upon which his home was searched was defective and was improperly executed. Following a hearing on November 10, 2003, the trial court denied the motion and the matter was scheduled to proceed to trial on November 24, 2003.
{¶ 5} On the morning of November 24, 2003, immediately prior to trial, Mendenhall entered pleas of guilty to three of the six counts in the indictment. Mendenhall pled guilty to one count of third degree felony Trafficking in Crack Cocaine, one count of fourth degree felony Trafficking in Crack Cocaine1 and one count of Having Weapons Under Disability. In so doing, Mendenhall admitted he sold 2.71 grams of crack cocaine for $600 to Kami Madison, a confidential informant, on May 9, 2003 and sold .44 grams of crack cocaine for $150 to Kami Madison on May 10, 2003; the transactions were committed within the vicinity of a school at Mendenhall's residence; and that Mendenhall's nephew, Anthony Freeling, participated with him in the sale of crack cocaine to Kami Madison on May 9, 2003.
{¶ 6} After Mendenhall entered his guilty pleas, he executed a waiver of jury trial and a bench trial proceeded on the remaining three counts of the indictment: one count of third degree felony Trafficking, one count of third degree felony Possession and one count of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity. Following the presentation of evidence, Mendenhall was found not guilty on one count of Trafficking and not guilty on one count of Possession. The trial court, however, found Mendenhall guilty of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, a first degree felony.
{¶ 7} It is from this conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that Mendenhall appeals and sets forth two assignments of error for our review. For clarity of analysis, we will discuss Mendenhall's assignments of error in reverse order.
{¶ 8} Mendenhall argues, in this assignment of error, that the state's evidence was insufficient because the state failed to prove that he engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity. An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction 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),
{¶ 9} The offense of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity is governed by R.C.
No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conductor participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprisethrough a pattern of corrupt activity.
{¶ 10} A "pattern of corrupt activity" is defined as two or more incidents of corrupt activity, 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. R.C.
{¶ 11} First, Mendenhall asserts that the stated failed to prove he engaged in a corrupt activity involving contraband of more than five hundred dollars on at least two occasions and, instead, only proved one sale that exceeded five hundred dollars.
{¶ 12} At trial, the state demonstrated, on the basis of Mendenhall's guilty pleas, that Mendenhall sold crack cocaine to confidential informant Kami Madison on May 9 and 10, 2003 in amounts of $600.00 and $150.00, respectively, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 13} "Corrupt activity" is defined as follows:
Any violation of section * * *
{¶ 14} Based on the definition of "corrupt activity" contained in R.C.
{¶ 15} Next, Mendenhall argues that the state failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was involved in an "enterprise." Mendenhall asserts that he was not acting for the benefit of an enterprise, and that this is substantiated by the fact that he gave away more drugs than he sold and that all of the money used in undercover drug buys was recovered from Mendenhall's residence.
{¶ 16} As used in R.C.
{¶ 17} Before trial, when Mendenhall entered guilty pleas to three counts in the indictment, he admitted that he worked with Anthony Freeling in a sale of drugs to Kami Madison. In the trial court's verdict, based on additional evidence adduced at trial, the court found that Freeling not only participated in the sales to Kami Madison but also kept potential customers away at times when it was inconvenient to Mendenhall. Further evidence was introduced that Mendenhall would replenish his supply of crack cocaine from sources in Lima when it ran out. The trial court found that this evidence demonstrated that Mendenhall was involved with another, or others, in the distribution and sale of crack cocaine and, as such, conducted or participated in the affairs of an enterprise.
{¶ 18} We find that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conclusions made by the trial court. Mendenhall's admission that he participated with Anthony Freeling in the sale of crack cocaine, if believed, could convince the average mind that Mendenhall was engaged in an enterprise, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 19} After review, we hold that the facts admitted by Mendenhall in his plea allocution, coupled with the state's evidence, were sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Mendenhall engaged in two or more instances of corrupt activity, that the combination of the sales of drugs exceeded five hundred dollars and that Mendenhall participated with others in the sale of crack cocaine. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding Mendenhall guilty of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity. Mendenhall's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 20} Mendenhall argues herein that the trial court committed error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his home. Even if Mendenhall is correct in his assertion that the evidence obtained in the search of his home should not have been allowed at trial, we cannot find that the alleged improper admission of evidence constitutes reversible error. Rather, we find any error in this regard was harmless.
{¶ 21} Harmless error is defined as: "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." See Crim.R. 52(A). The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that "[h]armless error is any error that does not affect the outcome of the case and, thus, does not warrant a judgment overturned or set aside."State v. Brown,
{¶ 22} Simply stated, Mendenhall's conviction for Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity was not predicated on evidence obtained in the search of Mendenhall's residence. Rather, the facts admitted to by Mendenhall in his plea entry formed the basis of the trial court's determination of his guilt. As previously stated, the trial court found that Mendenhall sold crack on May 9 and 10, 2003 in amounts of $600.00 and $150.00, based on facts admitted by Mendenhall, and that the combination of these amounts exceeded $500.00. The trial court also found, based on Mendenhall's admission, that Anthony Freeling participated with Mendenhall in the sale of crack cocaine and, as such, Mendenhall was involved in an enterprise. The trial court found that the sales Mendenhall admitted to, as well as other sales of drugs during the period of February 23, 2001 and May 10, 2003, presented by witness testimony, constituted a pattern. Therefore, Mendenhall's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Having found no error prejudicial to appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed. Bryant, J., concurs. Rogers, J., dissents.