Court Opinion

ID: 9929912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 18:06:28.994576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:52:32.723273
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fulker, 2024-Ohio-388.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 3-23-27
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

ROBERT FULKER,                                            OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 22-CR-0047

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: February 5, 2024

APPEARANCES:

        William T. Cramer for Appellant

        Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee
Case No. 3-23-27

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert A. Fulker (“Fulker”) appeals the judgment

of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that his convictions are

against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On February 11, 2022, Lieutenant Brent Cottrill (“Lt. Cottrill”) of the

Crawford County Sherriff’s Office initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that had a loud

exhaust. Fulker was a passenger in the vehicle. During this stop, Lt. Cottrill

discovered that Fulker had an outstanding arrest warrant and directed Fulker to exit

the vehicle. He then performed a protective search of Fulker’s person but did not

locate any weapons. A cigarette pack that contained a small amount of marijuana

was discovered in Fulker’s back pocket.

       {¶3} After Fulker was arrested, Lieutenant Craig Moser (“Lt. Moser”)

arrived at the scene of the traffic stop. Lt. Cottrill asked Fulker if he had any

contraband in his possession and informed him that any illegal items taken into the

jail could provide grounds for additional criminal charges. Fulker was then placed

in Lt. Moser’s police cruiser and transported to jail. A corrections officer, Joseph

Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), took custody of Fulker at the jail to process his arrest and

conduct a more thorough search of his person.

                                           -2-
Case No. 3-23-27

       {¶4} During the search at the jail, Fulker took off his hoodie. At this time, a

small baggie containing a crystalline substance fell to the floor. Lightfoot later

reviewed the security camera footage of the search and stated that the baggie

appeared to have fallen from around Fulker’s waistband at the time he was removing

his hoodie. This substance inside the baggie was later tested and found to be 0.05

grams of methamphetamine.

       {¶5} On February 15, 2022, Fulker was indicted on one count of illegal

conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified governmental facility in

violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony. This charge formed the basis

of Case No. 22-CR-0047.        Fulker was subsequently indicted for aggravated

possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony. This

second charge formed the basis of Case No. 23-CR-0019. As these charges were

related, these cases were joined together with all filings to be received in Case No.

23-CR-0047.

       {¶6} On May 18, 2023, a jury trial was held on these charges. The State

introduced video recordings of the traffic stop and the search that occurred at the

jail. Fulker testified in his defense, stating that the clothes he was wearing during

the search were not his and that he was unaware of the illegal drugs found in his

possession. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both charges against Fulker. The

trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing on May 22, 2023.

                                         -3-
Case No. 3-23-27

                                 Assignment of Error

       {¶7} Fulker filed his notice of appeal on June 21, 2023. On appeal, he raises

the following assignment of error:

       Appellant’s convictions are not supported by the weight of the
       evidence.

Fulker argues that the jurors clearly lost their way in finding him guilty because he

testified at trial that the illegal drugs that were discovered did not belong to him.

                                   Legal Standard

       {¶8} In a manifest weight analysis, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to

determine whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.”

State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 73 (3d Dist.). For this reason, an

“appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ * * *.” State v. Elliott, 2022-Ohio-3778,

199 N.E.3d 944, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,

388, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, 547 (1997).

       Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence
       and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of
       witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the
       evidence, the factfinder ‘clearly lost its way and created such a
       manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed
       and a new trial ordered.’”

State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶

73, quoting Thompkins at 387.

                                          -4-
Case No. 3-23-27

       {¶9} “A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate

discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the

witnesses.” State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7.

“Only in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the

conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v.

Little, 2016-Ohio-8398, 78 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 131

Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.

       {¶10} To establish a conviction for illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto

grounds of a specified government facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), the

State must prove that the defendant “knowingly convey[ed] * * * onto the grounds

of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse * * *.” In turn, a “drug of abuse” is

defined as including controlled substances. R.C. 3719.011(A). “Methamphetamine

is classified as a controlled substance.” State v. Gerhart, 9th Dist. Summit No.

24384, 2009-Ohio-4165, ¶ 13. To establish a conviction for possession of drugs in

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly

obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance.” R.C. 2925.11(A).

                                   Legal Analysis

       {¶11} On appeal, Fulker argues that the finding that he knowingly possessed

methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 2925.11(A) and the finding that he

                                          -5-
Case No. 3-23-27

knowingly conveyed methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 3719.011(A)

are against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶12} At trial, Lt. Cottrill testified that he “asked Fulker if he had anything

illegal on him and explained to him * * * the consequences of taking anything illegal

inside the jail” at the time he was placed into a police cruiser. (Tr. 107-108). Fulker

was then taken to the jail where Lightfoot located the baggie of methamphetamines

on the floor next to Fulker. After Fulker denied having any knowledge of these

drugs, Lightfoot reviewed the security camera footage and concluded that the baggie

had fallen from Fulker’s waistband. On cross-examination, Lightfoot admitted that

he did not see the baggie fall from Fulker’s person and indicated that his conclusions

were based on the video footage.

       {¶13} Lt. Moser testified that, after the illegal drugs were discovered, he

spoke with Fulker. During this interview, he pointed out that

       he [Fulker] was asked if he had anything else on him because if he
       brings it into the jail he’d be having an additional charge. And he
       [Fulker] told me he didn’t know he had it and then stated that he was
       wearing somebody else’s clothes.

(Tr. 124). At trial, Fulker testified that he found the hoodie he was wearing in a

trailer that he purchased three weeks prior to his arrest. He also indicated that he

had not seen these methamphetamines until he was at the jail; that he did not know

about the presence of this controlled substance; and that these drugs were not his.

                                         -6-
Case No. 3-23-27

Fulker stated that he would have told the police about the baggie of

methamphetamines if he had known about them.

       {¶14} During a question on cross-examination, the prosecutor noted that the

baggie appeared to fall from Fulker’s waistband in the security camera footage

while Fulker was maintaining that the baggie came from the pocket of the hoodie

he was wearing at trial. In response, Fulker stated that he believed the camera

footage shows that the baggie fell out of the pocket of his hoodie, though he admitted

that he was not sure where the baggie was before it fell. The security camera footage

was played at trial for the jurors to observe.

       {¶15} To summarize, the State introduced video footage at trial in which a

baggie of methamphetamines can be seen falling out of Fulker’s clothing while he

was being searched at the jail. In response, Fulker denied having any knowledge of

these illegal drugs that were on his person. The jurors apparently found his denial

not to be credible. As the finders of fact, the jurors were “free to believe all, some,

or none” of his testimony. State v. Houdeshell, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-18-02, 2018-

Ohio-5217, ¶ 39. Having examined the record, we have found no indication that

the jury lost its way and returned verdicts that were against the manifest weight of

the evidence. The sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                          -7-
Case No. 3-23-27

                                   Conclusion

       {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

                                                              Judgment Affirmed

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                       -8-