Court Opinion

ID: 9395054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:08:06.545642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.126199
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Curtis, 2023-Ohio-1651.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                        STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                   JUDGES:
                                                 Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                 Case No. 2022CA00033
 CORTNEY RAHEEM CURTIS

          Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                 Common Pleas, Case No. 2021-CR-
                                                 1124B

 JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         May 15, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

 KYLE L. STONE                                   JACOB T. WILL
 Prosecuting Attorney                            121 South Main Street – Suite #520
 Stark County, Ohio                              Akron, Ohio 44308

 VICKI L. DeSANTIS
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 Appellate Division
 110 Central Plaza South – Suite #510
 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                      2

Hoffman, P.J.
       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Cortney Raheem Curtis appeals the judgment entered

by the Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting him following jury trial of trafficking

in cocaine with a major drug offender specification (R.C. 2925.03(A)(C)(4)(g), R.C.

2941.1410(A)), and possession of cocaine with a major drug offender specification (R.C.

2925.11(A)(C)(4)(f), R.C. 2941.1410(A)) and sentencing him to term of incarceration of

11 to 16.5 years. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                            STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On May 23, 2021, Agent Mark McMurtry of the FBI received a tip someone

might be trying to distribute cocaine in Canton, Ohio. Agent McMurtry is the coordinator

of the FBI Safe Streets Task Force, which combines federal, state and local law

enforcement in Stark County to investigate drug trafficking. Agent McMurtry contacted

other officers in the task force.

       {¶3}   Canton Police Officer Brandon Schmidt was assigned to the task force.

Acting on Agent McMurtry’s tip, the task force located the car in question parked in Plain

Township.     When the vehicle began driving south toward Canton, Officer Schmidt

followed the vehicle. He observed the vehicle change lanes without using a turn signal.

Officer Schmidt was in plain clothes and driving an unmarked car, so he did not stop the

car, but instead radioed for assistance.

       {¶4}   Patrolman Anthony Angelo of the Canton Police Department stopped the

vehicle after hearing the radio alert. Appellant was driving the vehicle. When the vehicle

was stopped by police, Appellant ran from the car, and was apprehended by officers. As

he fled, he dropped his cell phone, which was recovered by police. Two other passengers
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                       3

were inside the car:    Appellant’s co-defendant Alton Curtis was seated in the front

passenger seat, and another man was seated in the back seat.

       {¶5}   Officers called for a K9 unit to conduct a sniff of the car. Officer David

Samuels and his dog Boss responded to the call. Boss alerted on the car. Officers then

searched the car, and located a black backpack on the back seat which contained about

a kilogram of a packaged product. Officers found an assault rifle under a towel in the

backseat. The substance in the package found in the backpack was later determined to

be cocaine. A cell phone, later determined to belong to Alton Curtis, was also recovered

from the passenger side dash of the vehicle. A veterinarian bill and a medical bill in

Appellant’s name were also found in the vehicle.

       {¶6}   Agent McMurtry and Officer Schmidt interviewed Alton at the Canton Police

Department. Although the officers believed recording equipment was operating during

the interview, they later discovered the equipment was not functioning properly. However,

both officers took notes on the interview. During the interview, Alton admitted he traveled

from Houston, Texas to Ohio for the purpose of bringing narcotics to Canton. Alton told

officers he had two kilograms of cocaine. He admitted the backpack belonged to him.

Alton admitted the cocaine in the backpack was the cocaine he brought from Houston,

but denied putting it in the backpack. He denied any knowledge there was a gun in the

car. Alton told police where they could locate the second kilogram of cocaine in his

vehicle.

       {¶7}   Officers were unable to interview Appellant because he became too

emotional, laying on the floor and crying. Appellant lamented his life was over, and he

had screwed up.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                      4

       {¶8}   Officers determined the vehicle Appellant was driving was registered to

Appellant’s girlfriend. The third man in the vehicle told officers he was at Appellant’s

house spending time there before Alton arrived, then went along with them in the car. He

was not criminally charged.

       {¶9}   Officers obtained a search warrant for Appellant’s home and for the car

Alton drove from Texas to Ohio. Officers were unable to locate the second kilogram of

cocaine in Alton’s car. In Appellant’s house officers found a second firearm, as well as a

digital scale of a type often used in drug trafficking.

       {¶10} The next day, officers again talked to Alton at the Stark County Jail. Alton

gave consent to search his cell phone which was found in the vehicle, and gave the

officers the phone number and the password for the phone. Both Alton’s phone and the

phone Appellant dropped when he fled the scene were turned over to the Jackson Police

Department for extraction.

       {¶11} Detective Matt Demyan of the Jackson Township Police Department

performed data extractions on the two cell phones. He placed the extracted data from

the phones on an external zip drive, and generated reports. Officer Schmidt received the

zip drive. He found text messages which matched between the two phones. The

messages contained language which Officer Schmidt, in his experience with the task

force, found related to discussion of buying and selling cocaine.        In some of the

messages, Alton referred to Appellant as “Unc.” The messages included discussion of

the street value of cocaine, the amount of cocaine Alton would bring from Texas, and how

much cocaine they could sell. Videos attached to Alton’s text messages showed the kilos

of cocaine he referred to in his messages.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                        5

       {¶12} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury with trafficking in

cocaine and possession of cocaine, each with major drug offender specifications, and

having a weapon under disability. The case proceeded to a joint jury trial with Alton Curtis

in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. The jury found Appellant guilty of trafficking in

cocaine and possession of cocaine, with the major drug offender specifications, but not

guilty of having a weapon under disability.       The trial court convicted Appellant in

accordance with the jury’s verdict. The trial court found the convictions merged, and the

State elected to have Appellant sentenced for trafficking in cocaine. The trial court

sentenced Appellant to an indeterminate term of 11 to 16.5 years incarceration. It is from

the March 2, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning

as error:

              I. THE JURY’S FINDING OF GUILT WAS AGAINST THE

       MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.

              II. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY

       SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS

       CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED

       STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OF THE OHIO

       CONSTITUTION.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                         6

                                            I., II.

       {¶13} Appellant argues the judgment is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, and further the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the

conviction.

       {¶14} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,

weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678

N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).

       {¶15} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is to determine 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. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492,

paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).

       {¶16} Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A):
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                        7

              (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

              (1) Sell or offer to sell a controlled substance or a controlled

       substance analog;

              (2) Prepare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for

       distribution, or distribute a controlled substance or a controlled substance

       analog, when the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that

       the controlled substance or a controlled substance analog is intended for

       sale or resale by the offender or another person.

       {¶17} Appellant was also convicted of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), which provides, “No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a

controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.”

       {¶18} Appellant argues there was no evidence to support a finding he knowingly

transported the cocaine, knowing or having reason to believe the cocaine was intended

for sale, and further there was no evidence presented to demonstrate he possessed the

cocaine. He argues the mere presence of the cocaine in the vehicle he was driving was

insufficient to establish possession, particularly as Alton Curtis admitted ownership of the

backpack and the cocaine. Appellant argues he was not implicated by Alton. While he

concedes the text messages would provide some evidence to support the convictions, he

argues there was no evidence to connect him to the cell phone, nor was there any

evidence to demonstrate he was the person sending and receiving the messages

concerning the transport and sale of cocaine. While Alton’s messages used the identifier

“Unc,” he argues there was no evidence Cortney and Alton were uncle and nephew.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                     8

      {¶19} In State v. Davis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20CAA120052, 2022-Ohio-577,

Davis argued his conviction of possession of drugs was against the manifest weight of

the evidence because there was another passenger in the vehicle in which the drugs

were found, and there was no evidence he owned the drugs or the car. This Court found

the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because there was

evidence of a Facebook post from which the jury could infer Davis was the owner of the

vehicle. Because of this, Davis had dominion and control over the place in which the

contraband was found. Id. at ¶24. The presence of a female passenger in the vehicle

did not prohibit the jury from finding Davis constructively possessed the cocaine because

multiple people may constructively possess an item simultaneously. Id. at 26.

      {¶20} Similar to Davis, in the instant case the State presented evidence to

establish Appellant had dominion and control of the vehicle in which the cocaine was

found. The State presented evidence the car was registered to Appellant’s girlfriend. A

veterinarian bill and a medical bill in Appellant’s name were found in the vehicle, and

Appellant was driving the vehicle. Officers testified the backpack containing the cocaine

was in close proximity to Appellant. From this evidence, the jury could infer Appellant

constructively possessed the cocaine.

      {¶21} In addition, the State presented evidence Appellant fled the scene as soon

as the vehicle was stopped. While Appellant told officers he ran because he did not have

an operator’s license, the jury could find he fled because of knowledge of the contraband

in the backseat.   Further, Agent McMurty and Officer Schmidt testified when they

attempted to interview Appellant, he became emotional, laid on the floor, cried, and
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                      9

lamented his life was over and he screwed up, from which the jury could infer Appellant

had knowledge of the cocaine in the vehicle.

       {¶22} Patrolman Angelo testified as Appellant ran from the vehicle, a cell phone

fell from Appellant. Patrolman Angelo picked up the cell phone and turned it over to the

FBI task force. The officer identified the phone in court as the phone which he picked up

after it fell from Appellant. Detective Demyan testified the phone, which he identified in

court, was given to him by the task force for data extraction.

       {¶23} Although Appellant argues there was no evidence he was Alton’s uncle,

Det. Schmidt testified when interviewing Alton, “Alton indicated to us that he had came

from Houston, Texas up to his uncle’s house. And he brought 2 kilo’s of cocaine with

him.” Tr. (II) 46. While the extracted messages included an Apple identifier and not

Appellant’s name, we find from the evidence the cell phone fell from his body as he ran

and the identifier of “unc” in the messages between Alton’s phone and the cell phone

which fell from Appellant’s person, the jury could infer the cell phone belonged to

Appellant, and he was the person using the cell phone to communicate with Alton.

       {¶24} Officer Schmidt testified as to numerous text messages communicated

between the two cell phones, providing context and definition as to some of the language

used in the messages based on his knowledge investigating drug trafficking. He testified

the messages discussed the buying and selling of cocaine, the street value of cocaine,

the amount of cocaine Alton would bring from Texas, and how much cocaine they could

sell. A video attached to a text message sent by Alton showed a kilogram of cocaine.

From this evidence, we find the jury could find Appellant possessed the cocaine and was

transporting the cocaine for sale at the time the vehicle was stopped.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00033                                                         10

       {¶25} We find the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions

of trafficking and possession of drugs, and the jury did not lose its way in finding Appellant

guilty of both charges.

       {¶26} The first and second assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of

the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur