Court Opinion

ID: 9891359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 14:09:24.622316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:02.552685
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Beauford, 2023-Ohio-3782.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                   NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                            C.A. No.    30545

        Appellee

        v.                                               APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                         ENTERED IN THE
TERRELL BEAUFORD                                         COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                         COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                        CASE No.   CR 18 09 3060

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: October 18, 2023

        CARR, Judge.

        {¶1}     Defendant-Appellant Terrell Beauford appeals the judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                  I.

        {¶2}     Following an investigation into suspected drug activity, a search warrant was

obtained for 630 Crosby Street, apartment 1, in Akron. Police believed it to be a two-unit dwelling;

however, the search revealed that the first floor contained two apartments in addition to the known

upstairs apartment. Based upon evidence recovered in the search, an indictment was filed in

October 2018, charging Beauford with multiple drug offenses, having weapons while under

disability, and endangering children. Forfeiture specifications accompanied some of the charges.

A supplemental indictment was filed in December 2018, adding several additional drug offenses,

forfeiture specifications, and firearm specifications.
                                                 2

       {¶3}    Beauford filed several pretrial motions including a motion to suppress arguing that

the search warrant lacked particularity and that the affidavit in support of the warrant lacked an

adequate factual basis to support a finding of probable cause. Beauford also filed a motion for a

hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 172 (1978), challenging the affidavit offered in

support of the search warrant. In support of his motion for a hearing, Beauford submitted several

exhibits. The State opposed the motion. A suppression hearing was held, and post-hearing briefs

were submitted by the parties. The trial court denied the motions. Beauford filed a motion for

reconsideration, which was also denied.

       {¶4}    In April 2022, upon motion of the State, several charges and specifications were

dismissed. Additional counts were dismissed prior to the commencement of trial and Beauford

waived his right to a jury trial as to the forfeiture specifications. The remainder of the matter

proceeded to a jury trial. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to three counts,

including the count of having weapons while under disability, and a special finding associated with

an additional count. Mistrials were declared as to those counts and the special finding. The jury

found Beauford guilty of possession of cocaine, aggravated possession of drugs, aggravated

trafficking in drugs, possession of drugs, and endangering children. The jury found Beauford not

guilty of the illegal manufacture of drugs. The trial court found the funds subject to forfeiture.

The trial court sentenced Beauford to a total term of 10 years in prison.

       {¶5}    Beauford appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable

order. State v. Beauford, 9th Dist. Summit No. 30355 (Nov. 9, 2022). The trial court then issued

another entry and Beauford again appealed. Beauford has raised three assignments of error for our

review, some of which will be addressed out of sequence to facilitate our analysis.
                                                 3

                                                 II.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. BEAUFORD’S MOTION TO
       SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO SEARCH WARRANTS
       THAT WERE ISSUED AND EXECUTED IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS
       UNDER THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
       UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION.

       {¶6}    Beauford argues in his first assignment of error that the warrant affidavit contained

false statements that were either intentionally made or were made with reckless disregard for the

truth and those false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause. Beauford also

appears to assert that the warrant lacked particularity and that the right apartment should not have

been searched as it was apartment 2 and only apartment 1 was mentioned in the warrant.

       {¶7}    The search warrant at issue authorized the search of 630 Crosby Street, Apartment

#1 which was further described as

       being a green sided with white trim, two story, multiple unit dwelling which faces
       north towards Crosby Street. The numeral “630” are black and are located on the
       north side front porch support column on the east side of the porch which is white
       in color. The residence is located on the south side of Crosby Street. The driveway
       is located on the east side of the premises and leads to a small parking area in the
       rear of the residence. There are no visible apartment number markers on the doors
       being utilized during the investigation however the two doors are: FRONT, north
       side door off of the front porch with a black metal security door; and REAR, south
       side door with a black metal security door. The curtilage and persons described
       within said affidavit are also to be searched.

       {¶8}    The property to be searched for included Ecstasy, firearms, currency, records,

documents, and measuring and processing equipment related to drug trafficking.

       {¶9}    The affidavit of Sergeant, then Detective, Todd Sinsley, which is dated September

6, 2018, describes the premises as provided in the warrant. The affidavit details a controlled buy

of Ecstasy made by an information source at the premises within 16 days prior. The affidavit also

indicates that the affiant discussed the alleged drug activity at the premises with the source within
                                                 4

three days prior and that the source indicated that the occupants of the residence, Tyrone Beauford

(“Tyrone”) and Beauford, were both in possession of Ecstasy and were in the process of selling

from that location. The affidavit states that the source has provided the affiant with information

concerning the possession and sale of controlled substances in Akron and the information has been

corroborated by the affiant. The affidavit also lists the arrest records of both Tyrone and Beauford

and indicates that Beauford is listed on the public utilities for 630 Crosby, apartment 1. In the

affidavit, the affiant describes a short-term visit to the location on August 21, 2018. The vehicle

involved was described as having Ohio plates. The vehicle was stopped, and the driver discovered

to be Tristan Beauford (“Tristan”), the brother of Tyrone and Beauford. Tristan was found with

cash, marijuana, Fentanyl, and cocaine. The affidavit also notes a large amount of short-term

traffic over the prior three weeks involving the front door and rear south side door of the location

which was consistent with drug trafficking.

       {¶10} The search was conducted September 6, 2018. The property had three mailboxes

but only two were labeled. Upon entering the front door of the residence there was a foyer with a

stairway and two doors, one on either side of the foyer. Neither of the doors had identifying

information on the outside and both were open; ultimately it came to light that each was a separate

apartment. Beauford was seen running from the apartment on the left into the apartment on the

right and towards the back door, which was connected to the apartment on the right. Drugs were

located in the apartment on the right and Beauford was found with a key to the apartment on the

right on his person. Beauford’s girlfriend and his child were located in the apartment on the left.

Beauford’s girlfriend stated that Beauford did not stay in that apartment with her.

       {¶11} The review of a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact. State v.

Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372. “The very nature of the questions presented
                                                  5

requires a case-by-case fact-driven analysis.” State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1, 2015-Ohio-

1565, ¶ 32.

       {¶12} “The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance

of any warrant except one ‘particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or

things to be seized.’ The manifest purpose of this particularity requirement was to prevent general

searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there

is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its

justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the

Framers intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987); see also Ohio

Constitution, Article 1, Section 14. “For a search warrant to issue, the evidence must be sufficient

for the magistrate to conclude that there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found

in a particular place. The reviewing court then must ensure that the magistrate had a substantial

basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Castagnola at ¶ 35. “Probable cause to search

does not require proof that a crime was actually committed, merely the fair probability that

evidence of a crime will be found at the location described.” State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d

101, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 41.

       {¶13} “There is * * * a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a]

search warrant.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. In a challenge to the veracity of the facts set forth in

the warrant affidavit,

       [t]o mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than
       conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.
       There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the
       truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should
       point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false;
       and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits
       or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their
       absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are
                                                 6

       insufficient. * * * [I]f these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the
       subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains
       sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no
       hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the
       defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing.

Id. at 171-172.

       {¶14} Thus, “[t]o successfully attack the veracity of a facially sufficient search warrant

affidavit, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant made a false

statement, either intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Internal quotations and

citations omitted.) McKnight at ¶ 31. “[R]eckless disregard means that the affiant had serious

doubts of an allegation’s truth. Omissions count as false statements if designed to mislead, or * *

* made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead, the magistrate.” (Internal quotations

and citations omitted.) State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451, 2012-Ohio-4630, ¶ 18.

       {¶15} In his motion for a Franks hearing, Beauford asserted that the affidavit for the

search of apartment 1 was problematic because the residence at issue contained three apartments

as opposed to two. Instead of the first floor being a single apartment, it contained two separate

apartments. Beauford maintained that the apartment that contained the contraband was apartment

2 and that that apartment was not identified in the warrant. In addition, Beauford asserted that

Tristan, who is mentioned in the affidavit, drove a vehicle registered in North Carolina, not Ohio

and that Tyrone, also mentioned in the affidavit, lived in Georgia, not Ohio.

       {¶16} In support of his claims, Beauford submitted several documents, including, inter

alia, a document from the fiscal office indicating the residence was a three-family dwelling,

Beauford’s lease for apartment 1, evidence of an October 2018 complaint to evict Tristan from

apartment 2, a document from a 2013 court case evidencing that Tyrone had a mailing address in

Georgia, utility bills from after the search was conducted that are addressed to someone other than
                                                   7

Beauford, and an incident report from August 21, 2018, demonstrating that Tristan was arrested

and drove a vehicle registered in North Carolina. Notably absent, without explanation, was any

affidavit, witness statement, or other sworn testimony to support Beauford’s claims. See Franks

at 171. While Beauford pointed to other alleged “inconsistencies and misstatements” in the

affidavit, he never specifically asserted that the affiant made a false statement, either intentionally,

or with reckless disregard for the truth. See McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, at ¶

31; Franks at 171. Beauford also did not include a copy of the warrant and affidavit with the

motion. The State opposed Beauford’s motion and in so doing attached a copy of the search

warrant and affidavit. Given the foregoing omissions from the motion, we question whether any

Franks hearing was warranted. Nonetheless, the trial court held a hearing on Beauford’s motions,

including his more general motion to suppress. In so doing, the trial court indicated that the matter

was proceeding on the suppression hearing and if information came to light during the hearing the

trial court would reconsider with respect to whether a specific Franks hearing was warranted.

        {¶17} At the hearing, Sergeant Todd Sinsley testified first. At the time the warrant was

issued, Sergeant Sinsley was a detective in the Street Narcotics Uniform Detail with the Akron

Police Department. Sergeant Sinsley prepared the affidavit that accompanied the warrant and

presented it to the judge.

        {¶18} Sergeant Sinsley described the investigation that was undertaken to determine the

layout of the house. He indicated that it was discovered that the residence had two utility meters

and he also knew it was a multiple unit dwelling. The source indicated that the house had an

upstairs and downstairs apartment. Sergeant Sinsley also looked at the county website, which

states that it is a three-family dwelling, but explained that the county website was not usually

accurate as to how many units are in Akron area multi-family houses. Because of that, Sergeant
                                                 8

Sinsley explained that the police tend to determine the number of units from other factors such as

utility meters and the doors that are used by the suspects. Sergeant Sinsley looked up the utility

records on a computer database and confirmed that Beauford had utilities at that location beginning

in 2014 through 2018. Sergeant Sinsley also discovered that the calls to police associated with the

house tended to support that there was an upstairs and a downstairs apartment. And while there

were three mailboxes at the residence, only two were labeled. One mailbox was labeled Beauford

and another was labeled with a name unrelated to the investigation.

       {¶19} Sergeant Sisley explained that, prior to the execution of the warrant, police believed

that the first floor was one apartment that was being operated by Beauford and there was another

uninvolved apartment upstairs. Sergeant Sinsley agreed that the source was wrong about the layout

of the house. Sergeant Sinsley indicated that he was not sure on the numbering of the apartments

and that is why he identified the premises to be searched by the doors that he had seen used during

the course of the surveillance.     Sergeant Sinsley pointed out that the right-side apartment

containing the drugs was connected to both the front door and rear door and both those doors were

specified on the warrant and affidavit. Thus, the left apartment was the one that was unexpected

at the time of the search. Once police were inside the house during the search, it appeared that the

entire first floor was operating as one apartment with Beauford’s girlfriend and child living in the

left apartment and the drug business being conducted out of the right apartment.

       {¶20} Sergeant Sinsley testified about the controlled buy involving the source. He

indicated that the source met with Beauford on the front porch of the house and Sergeant Sinsley

observed Beauford go into the house. Sergeant Sinsley testified that Beauford was the black male

that was mentioned in the search warrant affidavit and that Sergeant Sinsley should have provided

that clarification in the affidavit. As to the short-term visit that ultimately resulted in Tristan’s
                                                   9

arrest, Sergeant Sinsley asserted that the individuals involved were using both the front and rear

doors. Sergeant Sinsley also confirmed that the affidavit contained a typo as to the plate of the

vehicle that Tristan was driving – it should have reflected that it was a North Carolina plate as

opposed to Ohio.

       {¶21} As to Tyrone, police knew that Tyrone had a residence in Georgia but also were

aware that Tyrone was making trips from Georgia to Akron and was staying at 630 Crosby when

he was in Ohio. Police suspected that Tyrone was also involved in the drug activity at the

residence.

       {¶22} Following Sergeant Sinsley’s testimony, the trial court stated that it found that

“while [the court] agree[s] that the initial arguments that [defense counsel] made may have shown

a preliminary showing that maybe something was false or inappropriate in the search warrant, [the

trial court finds] based on the testimony presented here today that there’s nothing intentional,

knowingly or reckless with regards to what was contained in the search warrant.” The trial court

then denied the request for a Franks hearing. The trial court informed the parties that any other

witnesses that were called were for purposes of the general motion to suppress.

       {¶23} Defense counsel then proceeded to call Beauford and the upstairs apartment tenant

as witnesses. Beauford testified that he rented the apartment to the left. A rental agreement dated

in 2014 indicates that Beauford rented 630 Crosby St. A-1. Beauford averred that Tristan lived in

the apartment to the right and eviction actions were filed against him in October 2016 and October

2018. Beauford testified that the landlord paid all of the utilities for the first floor of the building

and indicated that the utilities were in the landlord’s name. Bills submitted in support of

Beauford’s claim were dated subsequent to the search.
                                                10

       {¶24} The upstairs tenant also testified to living in the upstairs apartment for the last 19

or 20 years. The upstairs tenant explained that the landlord paid the downstairs utilities, but the

upstairs tenant paid his own utilities. The upstairs tenant averred that Beauford lived in the

apartment to the left and Tristan lived in the apartment to the right. The upstairs tenant indicated

that police did come up to his apartment and searched it.

       {¶25} Following the hearing, the parties submitted briefs. The trial court then issued an

entry denying Beuford’s motion for a Franks hearing concluding that “[w]hile the Affidavit may

have contained some inaccuracies, which only became evident in hindsight, the Court finds that

the Defendant did not produce evidence that constitutes a ‘substantial preliminary showing’ that

the Affidavit offered in support of the search warrant contained false or misleading statements, or

statements made with reckless disregard for the truth.” The trial court additionally concluded that

the warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity even though the

apartment was mislabeled as apartment 1. The trial court noted that the warrant and affidavit

described premises to be searched as the area between the front door and rear door and the only

apartment with access to both the front and rear doors was the apartment on the right where the

drugs were found.

       {¶26} On appeal, while Beauford asserts there were numerous discrepancies between the

affidavit and the testimony, Beauford has not demonstrated that the affiant made a false statement,

either intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. See McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101,

2005-Ohio-6046, at ¶ 31; Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Sergeant Sinsley explained in detail his process

and the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the affidavit and how he came to draft it as he

did. At best, the testimony evidences innocent mistakes made by the police in the course of the

investigation. See Franks at 171-172.
                                                   11

        {¶27} Further, Beauford has not shown that the warrant lacked particularity or that the

police should not have searched the right apartment pursuant to the warrant. As recited above, the

search warrant at issue authorized the search of 630 Crosby Street, Apartment #1 which was further

described as

        being a green sided with white trim, two story, multiple unit dwelling which faces
        north towards Crosby Street. The numeral “630” are black and are located on the
        north side front porch support column on the east side of the porch which is white
        in color. The residence is located on the south side of Crosby Street. The driveway
        is located on the east side of the premises and leads to a small parking area in the
        rear of the residence. There are no visible apartment number markers on the doors
        being utilized during the investigation however the two doors are: FRONT, north
        side door off of the front porch with a black metal security door; and REAR, south
        side door with a black metal security door. The curtilage and persons described
        within said affidavit are also to be searched.

        {¶28} “In determining whether a warrant is specific enough, the key inquiry is whether

the warrant could reasonably have described the items more precisely. A broad and generic

description is valid if it is as specific as circumstances and nature of the activity under investigation

permit * * *.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Amodio, 9th Dist. Medina No.

11CA0048-M, 2012-Ohio-2682, ¶ 7.

        {¶29} Here, police observed the suspects using both the front and rear doors, but those

doors did not list any apartment numbers. Based on the information they possessed, police

believed that the entire first floor was one apartment. Beauford does not explain how the warrant

could have been more specific in light of what the police believed to be true. Beauford tries to

argue that the warrant lacked particularity because the affiant relied on information that he knew

was false in drafting the description of the premises. However, as discussed above, Beauford did

not demonstrate that the affiant made a false statement, either intentionally, or with reckless

disregard for the truth.
                                                 12

       {¶30}     Here, the first floor contained a right and left apartment. The search disclosed the

drugs at issue in the right apartment. That apartment had access to both the front door and rear

door. Thus, the apartment containing the drugs was described in the warrant even if it was not

technically apartment 1. Beauford thus has not shown that police should not have searched that

apartment based upon the language in the warrant.

       {¶31} Beauford has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in denying his motion.

Beauford’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE
       FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
       SUPPORT THE CHARGE LEVIED AGAINST MR. BEAUFORD IN
       VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
       TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 10 &16 OF
       THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

       {¶32} Beauford argues in his third assignment of error that the guilty verdicts are based

on insufficient evidence. Essentially Beauford asserts that the evidence supports that the drugs at

issue belonged to Tristan not Beauford. We will limit our discussion accordingly.

       {¶33} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the

trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).

       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. The relevant inquiry is whether,
       after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
       trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
       reasonable doubt.

Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
                                                 13

        {¶34} As mentioned above, Beauford was found guilty of possession of cocaine,

aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine), trafficking in drugs (methamphetamine),

possession of drugs (propoxyphene), and endangering children.

        {¶35} At trial, Sergeant Sinsley again testified. He indicated that he was the lead detective

in a narcotics investigation involving 630 Crosby Street in August and September of 2018.

Officers had been surveying the house for a little over three weeks. The house was believed to be

a duplex with one apartment on the first floor and another on the second floor. This conclusion

was based upon prior calls to the house, public records, and how the building looked from the

outside. Additionally, the utilities for the downstairs were in Beauford’s name. It was discovered

during the search on September 6, 2018, that the house was actually three apartments, with two

being on the first floor.

        {¶36} Prior to the search, police observed short-term traffic into the driveway side of the

residence to the back door and front door. Both Beauford and his brothers were seen using both

the front and back door and other people were seen meeting at both the front and back door.

Routinely, both Beauford and Tristan were seen at 630 Crosby Street. Police believed they saw

Beauford and his brother engage in hand-to-hand transactions in the driveway. Tristan was not

found at the house at the time of the search and had been arrested prior to the search for drug-

related offenses. His address was listed as 630 Crosby Street in paperwork related to the charges.

When the upstairs tenant was observed, he was seen using a stairway on the outside of the building.

        {¶37} On the day of the search, police observed a vehicle pull up to the residence.

Beauford and another individual exited the vehicle and entered the house via the front door.

Afterwards, the search warrant was executed. Beauford’s girlfriend and child were in the house

at the time. When entrance was made, Beauford was seen running into the apartment on the right
                                                  14

side1 and towards the back door, where he was then arrested. Drugs, including cocaine,

methamphetamine, and propoxyphene, were recovered from that right side apartment. In addition,

mail addressed to Tristan and mail addressed to Beauford was found in that apartment. $1500.00

in cash was also found there. Miscellaneous packaging materials, including plastic baggies and

wrappers, were found there as well. Police also discovered multiple digital scales, a blender with

drug residue, empty bottles which were believed to be used to dilute or cut the drugs, spoons, and

gloves. Sergeant Sinsley asserted that the presence of the gloves, spoons, and baggies indicated

that it was more than just a location selling drugs, it was also a location where drugs were

manufactured.

       {¶38} Police recovered a key to the apartment containing the drugs on Beauford’s person.

Beauford was the only person at the residence at that time who had a key to that apartment. In

addition, Beauford had $282.00 on his person.

       {¶39} Methamphetamine and a smart phone were recovered from the vehicle Beauford

had been driving. Sergeant Sinsley also discussed the phone extraction report from the phone

obtained from the vehicle and some of the text messages, which in Sergeant Sinsley’s training and

experience, were indicative of drug trafficking. The report indicated that an email account which

included Beauford’s name was associated with the phone.

       {¶40} Based on the totality of the evidence, Sergeant Sinsley believed that Beauford and

Tristan were involved in both drug manufacturing and drug trafficking.

       {¶41} In light of Beauford’s arguments in this Court, Beauford has not demonstrated that

his convictions were based on insufficient evidence. There was substantial circumstantial evidence

       1
         The trial transcript largely refers to this apartment as the west side apartment and the other
one as the east side apartment; however, for purposes of clarity and consistency, we will refer to
them as the right and left apartments.
                                               15

that connected Beauford to the apartment where the drugs and drug-related supplies were found

and also evidence that Beauford was engaged in drug trafficking. During the search, Beauford

was seen running through that apartment and towards the back door when he was stopped by

police. Beauford was the only person in the house with a key to that apartment and mail addressed

to him was found in that apartment. The cell phone found in the car Beauford was driving

contained texts that Sergeant Sinsley explained could be viewed as being associated with drug

trafficking. That phone included an email account that contained Beauford’s name. In addition,

police believed they had observed Beauford engaged in hand-to-hand transactions in the driveway

prior to the search.

        {¶42} R.C. 2925.01(K) states that “‘[p]ossess’ or ‘possession’ means having control over

a thing or substance, but may not be inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance

through ownership or occupation of the premises upon which the thing or substance is found.”

“This Court has repeatedly held that a person may knowingly possess a substance or object through

either actual or constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when an individual

knowingly exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be

within his immediate physical possession.       Additionally, [p]ossession of a drug includes

possessing individually, or jointly with another person. Joint possession exists when two or more

persons together have the ability to control an object, exclusive of others.” (Internal quotations

and citations omitted.) State v. Higgins, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27700, 2018-Ohio-476, ¶ 17.

        {¶43} Thus, the fact that Tristan may also have been connected to that apartment and the

drugs does not mean, in and of itself, that Beauford could not have possessed the drugs at issue.

Beauford has not demonstrated that his convictions were supported by insufficient evidence.

        {¶44} Beauford’s third assignment of error is overruled.
                                                 16

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       MR. BEAUFORD’S CONVICTIONS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST
       WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
       CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND
       ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 10 & 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

       {¶45} Beauford argues in his second assignment of error that the guilty verdicts are

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Beauford reiterates his assertion that the evidence did

not support that he was responsible for the crimes at issue.

       {¶46} To the extent that Beauford challenges the charge for having weapons while under

disability, we note that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that charge and it was subsequently

dismissed.

       In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
       evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and
       all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
       whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). An appellate court should exercise the

power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional

cases. Id.

       {¶47} Beauford’s argument is essentially a reiteration of his argument that his convictions

were based on insufficient evidence. This Court has reviewed the entire record and cannot say

that Beauford has demonstrated that the jury lost its way in finding him guilty of the offenses at

issue. See id. As discussed above, there was substantial circumstantial evidence implicating

Beauford in these crimes.

       {¶48} Beauford’s second assignment of error is overruled.
                                                17

                                                III.

       {¶49} Beauford’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                       DONNA J. CARR
                                                       FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.
                                         18

APPEARANCES:

PAUL M. GRANT, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.