Court Opinion

ID: 9366995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 16:07:11.906524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.846884
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Stewart, 2023-Ohio-253.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                                CASE NO. 9-21-36

        v.

KEISONN STEWART,                                           OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 2021 CR 116

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: January 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Thomas A. Gjostein for Appellant

        Jocelyn Stefancin for Appellee
Case No. 9-21-36

MILLER, P.J.

        {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Keisonn Stewart, appeals the October 29, 2021

judgment of sentence of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

        {¶2} On September 5, 2020, while conducting a personal search of Stewart,

an inmate at North Central Correctional Institution (“NCCI”), corrections officers

located several pieces of a paper, which the corrections officers suspected to be a

synthetic cannabinoid (also known as “K2” or “synthetic marijuana”). Thereafter,

corrections officers searched Stewart’s living quarters and located buprenorphine

on Stewart’s television stand.

        {¶3} On March 17, 2021, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Stewart on

two fifth-degree felony counts of possession of drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), (C)(1) and R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(2), respectively. Stewart appeared for

arraignment on May 24, 2021, and entered a plea of not guilty.

        {¶4} A superseding indictment was filed on June 30, 2021 which indicted

Stewart on two counts: Count One of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of

R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1), a fifth-degree felony, and Count Two of possession of

drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a first-degree misdemeanor.1 Count One relates

1
  The superseding indictment states that Count Two is a fifth-degree felony. (Doc. No. 18). However, prior
to the commencement of the trial, the State acknowledged that language relating to Stewart’s prior
convictions was inadvertently omitted from the superseding indictment resulting in the charge outlined in
Count Two being a first-degree misdemeanor rather than a fifth-degree felony. (Oct. 15, 2021 Tr. at 3-4).

                                                   -2-
Case No. 9-21-36

to the synthetic marijuana found in Stewart’s sock, and Count Two relates to the

buprenorphine found on Stewart’s television stand. On July 14, 2021, Stewart

appeared for arraignment and entered not guilty pleas to the counts in the

superseding indictment.

       {¶5} A jury trial was held on October 14-15, 2021. At the conclusion of the

trial, the jury found Stewart guilty of Count One and not guilty of Count Two.

       {¶6} On October 29, 2021, Stewart was sentenced to 11 months in prison.

That same day, the trial court filed the judgment entry of sentence.

       {¶7} Stewart filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 2021. He raises one

assignment of error for our review.

                              Assignment of Error

       Appellant’s conviction was not supported by the sufficiency of
       the evidence in violation of the due process clause of the
       Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I
       Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution and the conviction
       was also against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶8} In his assignment of error, Stewart combines arguments that his

aggravated-possession-of-drugs conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence

and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

       {¶9} Manifest “weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are

clearly different legal concepts.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389

(1997). Accordingly, we address each legal concept individually.

                                        -3-
Case No. 9-21-36

       {¶10} “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional

amendment on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).

Consequently, “[t]he 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. “In

deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor

assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of

fact.” State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571, 2013-Ohio-

4775, ¶ 33.

       {¶11} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the

manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine 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.’” Thompkins at 387,

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A reviewing

                                         -4-
Case No. 9-21-36

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. DeHass,

10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifest weight standard,

“[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the

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

Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter,

131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.

       {¶12} We first review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Stewart’s

conviction. Stewart was found guilty of aggravated possession of drugs in violation

of R.C. 2925.11(A). Possession of drugs under R.C. 2925.11(A) provides, “No

person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled

substance analog.” “‘Possess’ 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 which ownership or occupation of the premises upon which the thing or

substance is found.” R.C. 2925.01(K). “The issue of whether a person charged with

drug possession knowingly possessed a controlled substance ‘is to be determined

from all the attendant facts and circumstances available.’” State v. Brooks, 3d Dist.

Hancock No. 5-11-11, 2012-Ohio-5235, ¶ 45, quoting State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio

St.3d 490, 492 (1998). Pursuant to R.C. 2901.22(B), “A person acts knowingly,

regardless of his purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will

                                          -5-
Case No. 9-21-36

probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has

knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances

probably exist.”

         {¶13} At the trial, NCCI Corrections Officer Kurtis Barnette testified that on

September 5, 2020, he was instructed by his shift captain to search Stewart and

Stewart’s property. (Oct. 15, 2021 Tr. at 31-32). Officer Barnette located Stewart,

an inmate at the facility, and performed a personal search of his person. (Id. at 33-

34, 46).      During the search, Officer Barnette located what he suspected was

synthetic marijuana in the left sock that Stewart was wearing. (Id. at 33-34).

Stewart described the suspected synthetic marijuana as resembling one-inch by one-

inch squares of white paper. (Id. at 33, 36). Officer Barnette could not recall

precisely how many strips of suspected synthetic marijuana he found in Stewart’s

left sock, but stated that there were multiple strips. (Id. at 37).

         {¶14} When Officer Barnette located the suspected synthetic marijuana, he

put the evidence inside a clear glove and placed the glove in his pocket to ensure

that it was not misplaced. (Id. at 38). Officer Barnette also performed a search of

Stewart’s bunk area.2 (Id. at 34-36). Then, after completing several duties, such as

2
  During the search of Stewart’s bunk area, Officer Barnette located a strip of buprenorphine on a television
stand near Stewart’s bed. (Oct. 15, 2021 Tr. at 34-36). Although this buprenorphine formed the basis for
Count Two in the superseding indictment, the jury ultimately found Stewart not guilty of that count. (Doc.
Nos. 41, 46). The testimony and evidence relating to Count Two is not relevant to this appeal and will not
be further discussed.

                                                    -6-
Case No. 9-21-36

assisting with the inmate count, Officer Barnette delivered the suspected contraband

to his supervising shift officer. (Id. at 38, 44-45).

       {¶15} Next, Trooper Dorothy Gladden, the State’s Investigator assigned to

NCCI, stated that she reviewed the information she received from her internal

investigators regarding the contraband seized in relation to Stewart. (Oct. 14, 2021

Tr. at 55-56). Then, she took photographs of the evidence, sealed the evidence with

her initials, and placed it in the internal drop box at the Marion Highway Patrol Post

to be sent for testing at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Crime Lab. (Id. at 56-57).

Trooper Gladden identified Defendant’s Exhibit 1 as a series of photographs that

she took of the items that she sent to the Ohio State Highway Patrol Crime Lab for

testing. (Id.); (Defendant’s Ex. 1).

       {¶16} Trooper Gladden stated that, as part of her investigations, she gives

the subject of a criminal investigation the opportunity to make a statement to her

“on record.” (Oct. 15, 2021 Tr. at 53). According to Trooper Gladden, Stewart

declined her offer to comment on the incident. (Id. at 53-54).

       {¶17} Sarah Kestler, a criminalist for the Ohio State Highway Patrol Crime

Lab, testified that she performed testing on the suspected synthetic marijuana. (Id.

at 71). Through her analysis, she determined the one-inch by one-inch squares of

paper contained MDMB-4en-PINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. (Id. at 76-79);

(State’s Ex. 3).

                                          -7-
Case No. 9-21-36

         {¶18} In support of his position that his conviction is not supported by

sufficient evidence, Stewart makes a vague argument that there was “scant evidence

to connect [him] to the offense of possession.” (Appellant’s Brief at 5). In essence,

Stewart offers no factual or legal support for his assertion that his conviction is based

upon insufficient evidence.3 “It is the duty of the appellant, not the appellate court,

to construct the legal arguments necessary to support the appellant’s assignment[s]

of error.” State v. Gillespie, 3d Dist. Paulding No. 11-16-07, 2017-Ohio-6936, ¶ 56.

Moreover, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we

have little difficulty determining that a rational trier of fact could have found that

the State established that Stewart possessed the synthetic marijuana found in his left

sock. See State v. Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-1152, 2010-Ohio-3383,

¶ 12-15; State v. Brown, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 04CA3, 2004-Ohio-5887, ¶ 11-13.

         {¶19} Stewart’s argument that his conviction is against the manifest weight

of the evidence is predicated upon Officer Barnette’s testimony that he could not

conclusively state that Defendant’s Exhibit 1 depicted the items he confiscated from

Stewart’s sock.

         {¶20} Indeed, on cross-examination, Stewart’s trial counsel presented

Officer Barnette with Defendant’s Exhibit 1 and asked him if the photographs

3
  We note that Stewart does attempt to argue that Officer Barnette’s inability to identify Defendant’s Exhibit
1 relates to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, Stewart’s argument actually relates to the weight of
the evidence rather than the sufficiency of the evidence and, accordingly, is addressed in our discussion of
the weight of the evidence.

                                                     -8-
Case No. 9-21-36

accurately depict what he found in Stewart’s sock on September 5, 2020. (Oct. 15,

2021 Tr. at 45). In response, Officer Barnette stated, “I can’t remember.” (Id.).

However, Trooper Gladden, not Officer Barnette, took the photographs in

Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Trooper Gladden testified to the chain of custody of the

contraband and identified Defendant’s Exhibit 1 as a photograph of the suspected

contraband relating to her investigation of Stewart.

       {¶21} Although Stewart argues that Officer Barnette’s inability to identify

Defendant’s Exhibit 1 weighs against his credibility, “the weight to be given the

evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of facts.”

State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus.

Furthermore, it is possible that Officer Barnette’s admission actually bolstered his

credibility to the jury by demonstrating that he would not speculate or testify to facts

outside the scope of his knowledge.     “A verdict is not against the manifest weight

of the evidence because the finder of fact chose to believe the State’s [evidence]

rather than the defendant’s version of the events.” State v. Martinez, 9th Dist.

Wayne No. 12CA0054, 2013-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16. Accordingly, after reviewing the

record, we do not find that Stewart’s conviction is against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

       {¶22} Stewart’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                          -9-
Case No. 9-21-36

       {¶23} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Marion County Court

of Common Pleas.

                                                              Judgment Affirmed

SHAW and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                      -10-