[Cite as State v. Graf, 2014-Ohio-3603.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

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

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : 

-vs- : 

 : 

ANITA L. GRAF : Case No. 13-CA-59 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County 

 Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

 2012-CR-275 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 18, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

GREGG MARX SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY 

Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney DONALD L. REGENSBURGER 

 COLIN E. PETERS 

By: TIANNI S. HARRISON KRYSTIN N. MARTIN 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 523 South Third Street 

239 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 Columbus, OH 43215 

Lancaster, OH 43130 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Anita L. Graf appeals a judgment of the Fairfield County 

Common Pleas Court convicting her of complicity to illegal assembly or possession of 

chemicals for the manufacture of drugs (R.C. 2925.041), trafficking in marijuana (R.C. 

2925.03), and possession of marijuana (R.C. 2925.11), each count including a firearm 

specification (R.C. 2941.141). Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} This case arose in the afternoon of June 19, 2012 when members of the 

Fairfield County Sheriff's Office SCRAP Unit (Street Crime Reduction and Apprehension 

Program) performed a “knock and talk” at appellant's rural Berne Township residence in 

Fairfield County, Ohio. The Fairfield–Hocking Major Crimes Unit had received two 

anonymous tips alleging that a marijuana grow operation and methamphetamine lab 

were located on the property. 

{¶3} Two people were known to live at the residence: appellant and her 

boyfriend, Neil Morgan. Deputy Lyle Campbell knew appellant and Morgan from an 

earlier encounter, also a “knock and talk,” involving an allegation of drug activity. 

Morgan was alleged to be a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang called “The 

Avengers.” 

{¶4} The SCRAP Unit officers planned their approach prior to their arrival at 

appellant's residence. Campbell would approach the front door, knock, and ask to speak 

with appellant and Morgan, while four additional officers would spread out and take up 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 3 

positions around the perimeter of the residence for “officer safety” and to ensure that no 

one left through the back of the residence. 

{¶5} When the officers arrived, one motorcycle was parked in front of the 

residence, a Harley–Davidson model registered to Morgan. Appellant answered the 

door when Campbell knocked. Campbell identified himself, stated he was there 

because of complaints of drug activity, and asked if he could come in. Appellant stated 

she needed to put her dog away and closed the door. 

{¶6} Almost immediately as appellant closed the door, Sgt. Hamler advised 

Campbell that two officers in the rear of the residence had observed marijuana plants 

on a rear deck. Campbell knocked again and told appellant to come out. He heard 

people inside saying “hang on,” but he decided to make an “exigent entry,” opened the 

door partway, and announced “Sheriff's office, we're coming in.” As he entered the 

residence, appellant and Morgan were walking toward the front door from the dining 

room. 

{¶7} Morgan and appellant were brought outside and officers swept the entire 

residence to ensure no additional occupants were inside. They were detained outside 

the residence awaiting the arrival of a search warrant. 

{¶8} In the meantime, Deputy Luke Williams, also a member of the SCRAP 

Unit, arrived at appellant's residence and immediately walked through appellant's yard 

to the rear of the property for “officer safety.” He observed an elevated rear deck 

containing seven potted marijuana plants. He notified the other officers immediately and 

word spread to Campbell, who was attempting to speak to appellant at the front door. 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 4 

{¶9} After a warrant was obtained, officers searched appellant’s house, her car, 

and the outside property. In the main bedroom where appellant had placed her dog, 

officers found an open safe containing cash, ammunition, marijuana, instructions for 

cooking methamphetamine, and two firearms. Officers also found six sets of digital 

scales, a bag of marijuana seeds, clippings from marijuana plants, and a book about 

marijuana in the bedroom. In the living room officers found pipes commonly used to 

smoke crack cocaine and methamphetamine, baggies, and marijuana seeds. Officers 

found a device used to cook methamphetamine in a wood-burning stove in the 

basement. In appellant’s car, officers found more marijuana and traces of 

methamphetamine. Officers seized the marijuana plants that were growing on the back 

deck. 

{¶10} Appellant was indicted by the Fairfield County Grand Jury with one count 

of illegal assembly of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, trafficking in marijuana, 

and possession of marijuana. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained 

during the search of the home. The parties stipulated that the testimony taken and 

evidence presented during Morgan’s suppression hearing would be the same, and that 

the ruling on the motion to suppress filed by Morgan would be identical to the ruling in 

appellant’s case. 

{¶11} Photos of the property taken on June 19, 2012 were introduced at 

Morgan’s suppression hearing. The photos depict a small bungalow-style home with a 

front door directly in the center, approached by a sidewalk and steps requiring a short 

descent to approach the house. The home is surrounded by a yard in front of a wooded 

area to the rear, with outbuildings, a motor home, and a tarp-covered vehicle. In front of 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 5 

the covered vehicle is a yellow sign which is illegible in the photos but according to the 

uncontroverted testimony of appellant states “No Trespassing.” A “no trespassing” sign 

is also posted in the front window of the residence. A door is visible at the side of the 

house. The elevated rear deck upon which the marijuana was observed is only visible 

from the rear of the property. The deck does not extend the length of the house and is 

sheltered on one side by a wall. The elevated deck contains seven pots of readilyapparent marijuana which can be seen through the balusters of the deck in the 

photographs. 

{¶12} After the hearing, the court overruled Morgan’s motion to suppress, and 

therefore appellant’s motion to suppress was also overruled. 

{¶13} The case proceeded to jury trial. Appellant was found guilty of complicity 

on count one, illegal assembly of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs. She was 

found guilty of trafficking in marijuana and possession of marijuana, and to complicity on 

both offenses. She was also convicted of the firearm specifications. The court found 

that counts two and three and the associated complicity charges merged for sentencing, 

and the state elected to proceed on count two, trafficking in marijuana. Appellant was 

sentenced to eighteen months incarceration on count one and fourteen months 

incarceration on count two, to be served consecutively, and consecutive to the firearm 

specifications on each count. The court suspended the sentence on count one for a 

three year period of community control, to begin upon appellant’s release from prison. 

{¶14} Appellant assigns three errors on appeal to this Court: 

{¶15} “I. THE OFFICERS’ ENTRY INTO THE CURTILAGE OF THE HOME 

WAS A SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 6 

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 

ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. 

{¶16} “II. APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE 

SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHT 

TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

{¶17} “III. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE 

OFFENSES FOR WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED, AND THUS HER 

CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

I. 

{¶18} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to 

suppress, as the officers’ entry into the curtilage of the home was a search in violation 

of the Fourth Amendment. 

{¶19} In State v. Morgan, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 13-CA-30, 2014-Ohio-1900, we 

found that the entry into the curtilage in the instant case was a violation of the Fourth 

Amendment and the trial court therefore erred in overruling the suppression motion filed 

by Neil Morgan, appellant’s co-defendant. The parties in this case stipulated that the 

evidence on appellant’s suppression motion would be identical to that presented in 

Morgan’s case. For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion in Morgan, supra, 

appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained. 
Fairfield County, Case No.13-CA-59 7 

II., III. 

{¶20} Appellant’s second and third assignments of error both challenge the 

evidentiary support for her convictions, and are rendered moot by our disposition of 

assignment of error number one. 

{¶21} The judgment of the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court is reversed. 

This matter is hereby remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. Costs are assessed to appellee. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur.