[Cite as State v. Long, 2012-Ohio-3091.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO :

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : NUNC PRO TUNC

 : 

- vs - : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

GUY ALEXANDER LONG : FILED: July 2, 2012 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11CA95 

 

 For the reasons stated in our Memorandum-Opinion filed on June 27, 2012, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is affirmed. 

Due to a clerical error the language "Costs to" has been corrected to reflect 

"Costs to Appellant"; therefore, this Judgment Entry shall speak and be in effect, nunc 

pro tunc, as of June 27, 2012, the date of the former Judgment Entry of this Court, 

which this Judgment Entry corrects and replaces. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer______________ 

 

 _s/ W. Scott Gwin________________ 

 _s/ Julie A. Edwards _____________ 

 JUDGES 
COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: 

 Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

-vsGUY ALEXANDER LONG Case No. 11CA95 

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2011CR147H 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 27, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN C. NIEFT DALE M. MUSILLI 

38 South Park Street 105 Sturges Avenue 

Mansfield, OH 44902 Mansfield, OH 44903 

 

Farmer, J. 
Richland County, Case No. 11CA95 2 

{¶1} On March 11, 2011, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted appellant, 

Guy Alexander Long, on two counts of possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11, 

one count of having a weapon under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13, two counts 

of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51, and one count of safecracking 

in violation of R.C. 2911.13. Said charges arose from a search of appellant's residence 

pursuant to a no-knock search warrant. Subsequently, appellant was charged with one 

count of aiding and abetting tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12. 

{¶2} On May 18, 2011, appellant filed a motion to suppress, challenging the 

search warrant. A hearing was held on June 17, 2011. The trial court denied the 

motion. 

{¶3} On September 13, 2011, appellant pled no contest to all the counts except 

for one of the receiving stolen property counts which was dismissed. By sentencing 

entry filed same date, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of seven 

years in prison. 

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 

I 

{¶5} "INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL." 

I 

{¶6} Appellant claims he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. 

We disagree. 
Richland County, Case No. 11CA95 3 

{¶7} The standard this issue must be measured against is set out in State v. 

Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus, certiorari 

denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011. Appellant must establish the following: 

{¶8} "2. Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until 

counsel's performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of 

reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel's 

performance. (State v. Lytle [1976], 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 2 O.O.3d 495, 358 N.E.2d 623; 

Strickland v. Washington [1984], 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 

followed.) 

{¶9} "3. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel's deficient 

performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a reasonable probability that, 

were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different." 

{¶10} Appellant argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attack the 

sufficiency of the affidavit for the search warrant. Appellant argues the affidavit was 

based on unsubstantiated anonymous tips that were not corroborated by any other 

evidence. 

{¶11} On May 18, 2011, trial counsel filed a motion to suppress, but based the 

challenge on procedural irregularities in the search warrant itself. 

{¶12} The affidavit attached to the search warrant states the following in 

pertinent part: 

{¶13} "2. On December 01, 2010, METRICH received information from a 

concerned citizen stating that Guy Long is on Parole for Attempted Murder and is selling 

Crack Cocaine from 109 Lind Avenue, Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio. According to 
Richland County, Case No. 11CA95 4 

this source of information Guy Long installed a security camera to watch this property. 

Long is supplying numerous people with Crack Cocaine to sell in the City of Mansfield 

area. Long operates a 2003 Chevy Malibu (EQR-2184) and 1998 Black Chevy Blazer 

(FOH-1157). RM91803 

{¶14} "3. On January 11, 2011, METRICH received information from C.I. '05-43' 

stating that Guy Long is still selling Crack Cocaine from 571 West Cook Road, 

Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio. According to the source of information, Long is in 

possession of handguns. The source of information said that Guy Long had been 

violent with them in the past and had struck them with a handgun. RM88733 

{¶15} "4. On February 02, 2011, METRICH received information from a 

concerned citizen stating that Guy Long is selling Heroin and Crack Cocaine from 109 

Lind Avenue, Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio. The source of the information stated 

that Long is operating a Black truck. 

{¶16} "6. On February 4, 2011, METRICH received information from a 

concerned citizen that Guy Long of 109 Lind Avenue, Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio 

sells Crack Cocaine and Heroin from this residence. The source of information advised 

that Long recently received a shipment of drugs from Cleveland and may have that 

supply at this residence. Guy Long supplies other houses in the City of Mansfield with 

drugs to sell according to this source. The source also stated that Guy Long is 

aggressive. 

{¶17} "9. C.I. '05-43' has provided valuable information to METRICH 

Enforcement Officers which has been independently corroborated and proven reliable." 
Richland County, Case No. 11CA95 5 

{¶18} We find paragraphs 3 and 9 provide corroborative evidence that the 

confidential informant had previously provided information that was "independently 

corroborated and proven reliable." 

{¶19} In State v. George (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 325, paragraphs one and two of 

the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio set the standard for evaluating the quality of 

the information in a search warrant affidavit as follows: 

{¶20} "1. In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit 

submitted in support of a search warrant, '[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to 

make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth 

in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons 

supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of 

a crime will be found in a particular place.' (Illinois v. Gates [1983], 462 U.S. 213, 238–

239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 followed.) 

{¶21} "2. In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted 

in support of a search warrant issued by a magistrate, neither a trial court nor an 

appellate court should substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate by conducting a 

de novo determination as to whether the affidavit contains sufficient probable cause 

upon which that court would issue the search warrant. Rather, the duty of a reviewing 

court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that 

probable cause existed. In conducting any after-the-fact scrutiny of an affidavit 

submitted in support of a search warrant, trial and appellate courts should accord great 

deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause, and doubtful or marginal 
Richland County, Case No. 11CA95 6 

cases in this area should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant. (Illinois v. Gates

[1983], 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 followed.)" 

{¶22} Based upon the template set forth in George, we find there was significant 

verification of the credibility of the information to justify the issuance of the search 

warrant. Therefore, we conclude that although trial counsel should have challenged the 

affidavit on its face, there is no showing of actual prejudice to appellant given our review 

of the affidavit. 

{¶23} The sole assignment of error is denied. 

{¶24} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Edwards, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 _s/ Sheila G. Farmer______________ 

 

 _s/ W. Scott Gwin________________ 

 _s/ Julie A. Edwards _____________ 

 JUDGES 

SGF/sg 601
[Cite as State v. Long, 2012-Ohio-3091.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

GUY ALEXANDER LONG : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11CA95 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to 

 

 _s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ 

 

 _s/ W. Scott Gwin______________ 

 _s/ Julie A. Edwards ___________ 

 JUDGES