Court Opinion

ID: 9390000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:07:24.252118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.033764
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Evans, 2023-Ohio-1357.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                             :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
CARLY N. EVANS,                              :       Case No. 22CA000021
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Guernsey County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     21-CR-224

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    April 26, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JASON R. FARLEY                                      CHRIS BRIGDON
Assistant Guernsey County                            8138 Somerset Rd.
Prosecuting Attorney                                 Thornville, Ohio 43076
627 Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                               2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant, Carly Evans, appeals the decision of the Guernsey County

Common Pleas Court denying her motion to merge the offense of Illegal Conveyance of

Drugs of Abuse onto the Grounds of a Specified Governmental Facility, a violation of R.

C. 2921.36(A)(2) and a felony of the third degree and with the charge of Aggravated

Possession of Drugs, a violation of section 2925.11 (A) and a felony of the second-

degree.

                     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   Evans was stopped in her white Chevrolet Tahoe on July 3, 2021 after

making a turn without signaling. She denied anything illegal being in the vehicle and

consented to a search. A glass pipe was located in the vehicle and a different glass pipe

was located her bra. She was brought back to the county jail and a sign describing the

consequences of taking illegal items into the jail was read to her before she was admitted

to the jail. Evans was escorted into the jail and passed through a body scanner. That

scan disclosed that she was concealing items in her groin and, after being mirandized by

a detective, she admitted that she was carrying fentanyl and cocaine. Those items were

removed from her person and lab tests confirmed they were fentanyl and cocaine.

       {¶3}   Evans appeared in Cambridge Municipal Court after being charged with:

       {¶4}   Count One: Possession of Cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(4)(e)

a felony of the first degree;

       {¶5}   Count Two: Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a violation of section

2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(c) a felony of the second-degree;
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                                3

       {¶6}   Count Three: Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(d) a felony of the second-degree. (Complaint, July 7, 2021).

       {¶7}   On July 16, 2021, Evans was bound over to the Guernsey County Court of

Common Pleas and, on September 9, 2021, the Grand Jury issued an indictment

containing the following charges:

       {¶8}   Count One: Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11

(A)/(C) (1) (c), a felony of the second-degree;

       {¶9}   Count Two: Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03 (A)

(2)/(C) (1) (d), a felony of the second-degree;

       {¶10} Count Three: Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a violation of R.C. 2925.11

(A)/(C) (1) (c), a felony of the second-degree;

       {¶11} Count Four: Illegal Conveyance of Drugs of Abuse onto Grounds of a

Specified Governmental Facility, in violation of R.C. 2921.36 (A) (2)/(G) (2), a felony of

the third degree;

       {¶12} Count Five: Possession of Cocaine, a violation of R.C. 2925.11 (A)/(C) (4)

(d) a felony of the first degree with a specification for forfeiture of an automobile under

R.C. 2941.1417 (A).

       {¶13} On April 19, 2022 Evans withdrew her not-guilty plea and entered a plea of

guilty to Counts two through five of the indictment. At sentencing, Evans moved the court

to merge Count two, aggravated trafficking in drugs, with Count three, Aggravated

Possession of Drugs and that Count four, Illegal Conveyance of Drugs of Abuse onto

Grounds of a Specified Governmental Facility should be merged with Count five,

possession of cocaine. The state opposed the motion and the court concluded that the
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                                 4

offenses did not merge. The trial court imposed a sentence of a minimum of eleven years

to a maximum of fourteen years.

       {¶14} Evans filed a timely appeal and submitted one assignment of error:

       {¶15} “I. COUNT 2 AND COUNT 3 OF THE INDICTMENT, WERE OF THE SAME

IMPORT OR CONDUCT AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE MERGED UNDER R.C.

§2941.25.”

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶16} Appellate review of an allied-offense question is de novo. State v. Miku, 5th

Dist. No. 2017 CA 00057, 2018-Ohio-1584, ¶ 70, appeal not allowed, 154 Ohio St.3d

1479, 2019-Ohio-173, 114 N.E.3d 1207 (2019), quoting State v. Williams,134 Ohio St.3d

482, 2012-Ohio-5699, 983 N.E.2d 1245, ¶ 12.

       {¶17} Revised Code 2941.25 protects a criminal defendant's rights under the

Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions by prohibiting

convictions of allied offenses of similar import:

              Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to

       constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or

       information may contain Counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may

       be convicted of only one.

              Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of

       dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of

       the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as

       to each, the indictment or information may contain Counts for all such

       offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                                 5

       {¶18} The application of R.C. 2941.25 requires a review of the subjective facts of

the case in addition to the elements of the offenses charged. State v. Hughes, 5th Dist.

Coshocton No. 15CA0008, 2016-Ohio-880, ¶ 21. In a plurality opinion, the Ohio Supreme

Court modified the test for determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar

import. State v. Johnson,128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061. The

Court directed us to look at the elements of the offenses in question and determine

“whether it is possible to commit one offense and the other with the same conduct.”

(Emphasis sic). Id. at ¶ 48. If the answer to such question is in the affirmative, the court

must then determine whether or not the offenses were committed by the same conduct.

Id. at ¶ 49. If the answer to the above two questions is yes, then the offenses are allied

offenses of similar import and will be merged. Id. at ¶ 50. If, however, the court determines

that commission of one offense will never result in the commission of the other, or if there

is a separate animus for each offense, then the offenses will not merge. Id. at ¶ 51.

       {¶19} Johnson's rationale has been described by the Court as “incomplete.” State

v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281, 2015-Ohio-4615, 49 N.E.3d 266, ¶ 11. The Supreme Court

of Ohio has further instructed us to ask three questions when a defendant's conduct

supports multiple offenses: “(1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2)

Were they committed separately? and (3) Were they committed with separate animus or

motivation? An affirmative answer to any of the above will permit separate convictions.

The conduct, the animus, and the import must all be considered.” State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio

St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 31.

                                        ANALYSIS
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                                     6

       {¶20} Evans’ argument regarding charges that are subject to merger is confusing

as a result of contradicting references to Counts in the indictment. She argued at

sentencing that Count two should merge with Count three and that Count four should

merge with Count five. (Sentencing Transcript, p. 12, lines 9-13). The assignment of error

contained within the table of contents and page five of Evan’s appellate brief refers to

Counts two and three being subject merger, but the assignment of error on page one of

the brief refers to the merger of count three and count four. The brief presents an

argument regarding merger of Counts three and four (Appellant’s Brief, p. 6). and

concludes with a prayer for relief asking that this court “reverse the trial court's decision

regarding the merger of Count 3 and Count 4, as convicted on April 20, 2022.”

(Appellant’s Brief, p. 10). Because Evan’s argument consistently refers to count three,

Aggravated Possession of Drugs and count four, illegal conveyance of drugs onto the

grounds of a detention facility we will focus our review on those Counts.

       {¶21} Evans did not argue at the trial court level that Counts three and four should

merge. An accused's failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the

trial court forfeits all but plain error, and a forfeited error is not reversible error unless it

affected the outcome of the proceeding and reversal is necessary to correct a manifest

miscarriage of justice. State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d

860, ¶ 3. Accordingly, an accused has the burden to demonstrate a reasonable probability

the convictions are for allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct

and without a separate animus. Id. Absent such showing, the accused cannot

demonstrate the trial court's failure to inquire whether the convictions merge for purposes

of sentencing was plain error. Id.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                                  7

       {¶22} Evans argues that because she must possess the drug prior in order to

convey it into the detention center, the charges must merge. She contends that “in order

to ‘convey’ you must also possess, which is of the same import or same conduct; which,

according to R.C. §2941.25, may be indicted as separate offenses, however the

defendant can only be convicted of only one” and that “* * * it is impossible for a person

to convey illegal drugs onto the grounds of a prohibit place without also possessing the

very same drug.” (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8, 9). Evans relies on language in State v. Johnson,

128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061 which requires merger when the

same conduct can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import.

       {¶23} Evans was charged with a violation of R.C. 2925.11, Aggravated

Possession of Drugs which states that “[N]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or

use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.” Evans concedes that she

did possess a controlled substance and it is evident from the facts of the case that she

committed this offense long before she was escorted to the county jail and read the sign

prohibiting the conveyance of illegal substances into the jail. She had only committed one

offense up until the time that she entered the detention facility. When Evans entered the

detention facility with the drugs in her possession, she violated R.C. 2921.36 when she

“knowingly convey[ed} * * * onto the grounds of a detention facility * * * a drug of abuse *

* *.” While it is true that she could not commit the second offense without committing the

first, it is also clear that these offenses were committed separately by the different conduct

of Evans. She committed the violation of R.C. 2925.11 by possessing the drugs and the

violation of R.C. 2921.36 by the conveyance of the drugs. We find that the offenses were
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000021                                         8

committed separately and that Evans does not argue, and the record does not reflect,

plain error.

       {¶24} Evans assignment of error is denied.

       {¶25} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Wise, John, P.J. and

King, J. concur.