Court Opinion

ID: 9889605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 19:16:19.112722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:19.756717
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rhodus, 2023-Ohio-3678.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                             BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Appellee,                                  :         CASE NO. CA2023-03-029

                                                   :              OPINION
     - vs -                                                       10/10/2023
                                                   :

 ROGER D. RHODUS,                                  :

        Appellant.                                 :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. CR2022-04-0549

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Roger Rhodus, appeals his conviction in the Butler County Court

of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of two counts of aggravated trafficking in

drugs and two counts of aggravated possession of drugs. For the reasons set forth below,

we affirm.
                                                                     Butler CA2023-03-029

      {¶ 2} In early 2022, law enforcement officers with the Middletown Police

Department learned of drug-related activity occurring at 2824 Wilbraham Road in

Middletown, Ohio. After surveilling the home for approximately two months, Detective

Steve Crank arranged for a confidential informant to purchase methamphetamine from

appellant, a resident of 2824 Wilbraham Road (the "controlled buy"). On March 30, 2022,

the confidential informant completed the controlled buy, and purchased $80 worth of

methamphetamine from appellant in the home. Subsequently, Detective Crank obtained

and executed a search warrant for 2824 Wilbraham Road. During the search, officers

seized drug paraphernalia and 75.18 grams of methamphetamine from the residence.

      {¶ 3} Based on the above, appellant was indicted on July 6, 2022. Relating to the

March 30, 2022 controlled buy, the indictment included charges for aggravated trafficking

in drugs, a third-degree felony (Count I) and aggravated possession of drugs, a third-degree

felony (Count II). Count I and Count II further alleged that the amount of methamphetamine

at issue equaled or exceeded the bulk amount but was less than five times the bulk amount.

Relating to the search of 2824 Wilbraham Road, the indictment included charges for

aggravated trafficking in drugs, a second-degree felony (Count III); and aggravated

possession of drugs, a second-degree felony (Count IV). Count III and Count IV were

accompanied by firearm and forfeiture specifications, and further alleged that the amount

of methamphetamine at issue equaled or exceeded five times the bulk amount but was less

than 50 times the bulk amount.

      {¶ 4} Appellant pled not guilty to the charges and the matter proceeded to a jury

trial. At trial, the state presented testimony from the confidential informant, Detectives

Crank and Hoyle with the Middletown Police Department, and a forensic chemist. The

testimony at trial revealed that appellant leases 2824 Wilbraham Road and is the only

person listed on the lease. Although three others live with appellant at the home, those

                                            -2-
                                                                           Butler CA2023-03-029

individuals did not testify at trial and were not involved in the instant proceedings.

       {¶ 5} Regarding the controlled buy, a video recording of the confidential informant's

encounter with appellant was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. The video

shows the confidential informant entering 2824 Wilbraham Road and purchasing

methamphetamine from appellant in a bedroom of the home. The confidential informant

then left the home and provided the contraband to Detective Crank. The substance was

later analyzed by a forensic drug chemist, who determined the substance contained

methamphetamine and weighed 3.50 grams.

       {¶ 6} After the controlled buy, officers obtained a search warrant and conducted a

search of appellant's residence on April 1, 2022. During the search, three individuals,

including appellant, were found in the bedroom where the controlled buy transaction took

place. Three other individuals were found in the living room near the couch. The search of

the residence yielded a firearm and various drug paraphernalia in the bedroom, as well as

methamphetamine under the couch in the living room and in the bedroom.                       The

methamphetamine in the bedroom was in five separate containers found throughout the

room. After weighing each of the six containers discovered during the search, the forensic

chemist concluded that the methamphetamine found under the couch weighed 6.91 grams,

while the five containers found in the bedroom weighed 0.22 grams, 1.29 grams, 58.75

grams, 7.78 grams, 0.23 grams respectively. Collectively, the methamphetamine found in

the bedroom weighed 68.27 grams and the total methamphetamine found in the home

weighed 75.18 grams.

       {¶ 7} As a result of the search, appellant was arrested and interviewed by

Detectives Crank and Hoyle. A video recording of the interview was played for the jury and

admitted   into   evidence.      During    the    interview,   appellant    admitted   to   using

methamphetamine and marijuana regularly, but denied selling drugs or that the contraband

                                                 -3-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-03-029

discovered during the search belonged to him. Appellant confirmed he was the only person

on the lease for 2824 Wilbraham Road and that, although three others lived in the home,

none were present at the time of the search. Appellant indicated he did not have a bedroom

in the home but spent time and kept his things in the bedroom where the controlled buy

took place. Appellant did not accept or assign ownership of the contraband or illicit drugs

seized during the search and denied that anyone else present at the time of the search was

a "drug addict" or "drug guy."

       {¶ 8} At the close of the evidence, and outside of the presence of the jury,

appellant's trial counsel orally requested a lesser included offense jury instruction for Count

III and Count IV. Appellant's trial counsel argued the jury could conclude that appellant

possessed or trafficked an amount of methamphetamine that was less than five times the

bulk amount, and therefore, was guilty of committing a third-degree felony, as opposed to

a second-degree felony. After hearing argument from both parties, the trial court found that

the evidence did not support an instruction on a lesser included offense for either charge,

and denied defense counsel's request. After the denial of trial counsel's request, appellant

rested without presenting any witnesses or evidence.

       {¶ 9} After deliberation, the jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment,

and further found that, in Count III and Count IV, the quantity of methamphetamine at issue

was equal to or exceeded five times the bulk amount but was less than 50 times the bulk

amount. For sentencing purposes, the trial court merged as allied offenses of similar import

Count I and Count II, as well as Count III and Count IV, and entered convictions for

aggravated trafficking in drugs in Count I, a third-degree felony, and aggravated trafficking

in drugs in Count III, a second-degree felony. The trial court then proceeded to sentence

appellant to an aggregate prison-term of four to five and one-half years.

       {¶ 10} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignment of error for our

                                              -4-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-03-029

review:

       {¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED

RHODUS' MOTION FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES.

       {¶ 12} On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred when it failed to provide the

jury with an instruction on the lesser included offenses in Count III and Count IV.

Specifically, appellant claims that, when considering the location of the methamphetamine

discovered during the search of his residence, the jury could have reasonably determined

that he possessed less than five times the bulk amount of methamphetamine.

       {¶ 13} Before considering the merits of appellant's assignment of error, we first

address the state's contention that appellant failed to object to the jury instructions before

the jury retired for deliberations, and therefore, he has waived all but plain error on appeal.

Crim.R. 30(A) provides that an objection to a jury instruction should be specific and made

after the instruction is given, but before the jury retires.     The purpose of these two

requirements is to bring any error to the attention of the trial court, so the trial court may

provide proper instructions before the jury commences deliberations and to provide a

complete record for appellate review. State v. Glover, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2016-11-

016, 2017-Ohio-7360, ¶ 51, citing State v. Robinson, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 94CA2277, 1995

Ohio App. LEXIS 4882, *5-6 (Oct. 24, 1995). A party's failure to comply with Crim.R. 30(A)

waives all but plain error. Id. However, a party does not waive his objection to a jury

instruction if the record affirmatively demonstrates the trial court has been fully apprised of

the correct law governing a material issue in dispute. State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64

(1989), paragraph one of the syllabus.

       {¶ 14} In this case, the trial court noted there had been "numerous discussions"

regarding the jury instructions and offered appellant's trial counsel an opportunity to

"reiterate" his position on the record before closing arguments. At that time, counsel

                                              -5-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-03-029

reiterated that appellant had requested a lesser included instruction for Counts III and IV,

as it was possible for the jury to conclude that appellant "possessed less than 15 grams of

methamphetamine." Thus, defense counsel claimed a reasonable view of the evidence

could support that appellant was guilty of a lower-tiered felony in Count III and Count IV.

The trial court considered counsel's position, as well as the state's response, on the record

before denying the requested jury instructions. In so doing, the trial court summarized

appellant's position and applied the relevant facts to the applicable law. Based upon this

discussion of the issue at trial, we find the record affirmatively demonstrates the trial court

was fully apprised of the relevant and correct law governing the instruction at issue. We

note that appellant's request in this case was straightforward and did not involve an issue

of law that was convoluted or not clearly established. Additionally, it is evident from the

record that the trial court understood appellant's objection to the jury instructions, despite

counsel's failure to specifically object as described in Crim.R. 30. As a result, we conclude

appellant sufficiently preserved this issue for review on appeal. State v. Cornett, 82 Ohio

App. 3d 624, 631 (12th Dist.1992).

       {¶ 15} Turning to the merits of appellant's assignment of error, we review a trial

court's decision declining to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Doby, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-05-084, 2014-Ohio-2471, ¶ 17. An

abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial

court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Boles, 12th Dist.

Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 16} In considering whether an instruction upon a lesser offense should be given,

a trial court must first determine whether an offense is a lesser included offense of the crime

charged. State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-2974, ¶ 13. It is undisputed that

third-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs and aggravated trafficking in drugs are

                                              -6-
                                                                         Butler CA2023-03-029

lesser-included offenses of second-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs and

aggravated trafficking in drugs.     See, e.g., State v. McElroy, 7th Dist. Mahoning No.

99CA70, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4378, * 15 (Sept. 22, 2000). Therefore, the court must

proceed to determine whether the evidence in the case supports an instruction on the lesser

included offense. Evans at ¶ 13.

       {¶ 17} An instruction on a lesser included offense is only warranted "[i]f the trier of

fact could reasonably find against the state and for the accused upon one or more of the

elements of the crime charged and for the state on the remaining elements, which by

themselves would sustain a conviction on a lesser-included offense[.]" State v. Kilby, 50

Ohio St.2d 21, 24-25 (1977). Thus, a jury instruction on a lesser included offense is required

only where, when viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence presented

at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal of the crime charged and a conviction on

the lesser included offense. State v. Tolle, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-06-042, 2015-

Ohio-1414, ¶ 11, citing State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, ¶ 192. A

jury instruction on a lesser included offense is not required where the evidence presented

at trial does not meet this test. State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384, 2005-Ohio-2282, ¶

37. Rather, there must be "sufficient evidence" to "allow a jury to reasonably reject the

greater offense and find the defendant guilty on a lesser included (or inferior degree)

offense." Trimble at ¶ 192.

       {¶ 18} In the instant matter, we note at the outset that appellant failed to make a

written request for the lesser included offenses as provided by Crim.R. 30(A). Crim.R. 30(A)

states in pertinent part that "[a]t the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the

trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct

the jury on the law as set forth in the requests." (Emphasis added.) In this case, appellant

first moved the trial court to instruct the jury regarding lesser included offenses in an oral

                                               -7-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-03-029

request prior to closing arguments. This court has stated that when a defendant fails to

request a jury instruction in writing as required by Crim.R. 30(A), a trial court does not err

in denying his oral request for such an instruction. State v. Peyton, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2015-06-112, 2017-Ohio-243, ¶ 23; State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2015-05-

015, 2016-Ohio-1166, ¶ 37. See also State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982), paragraph

two of the syllabus.

       {¶ 19} However, even if appellant had made his jury instruction request in

compliance with Crim.R. 30(A), we would still find the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in refusing to give the requested instructions. As noted above, appellant was charged with

trafficking   and   possessing   between    five    and   50   times the   bulk amount       of

methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a schedule II substance and the bulk amount of

a schedule II substance is three grams. R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(g). These charges were based

upon the methamphetamine and paraphernalia seized during the execution of the search

warrant on April 1, 2022. In support of the requested jury instructions, appellant argues the

jury could have reasonably found that appellant possessed less than five times the bulk of

methamphetamine, i.e., less than 15 grams, and therefore, could have found appellant

guilty of third-degree felonies in Count III and Count IV.

       {¶ 20} The evidence before the jury established that appellant was present in the

bedroom of the home at the time officers executed the search warrant. Upon searching the

bedroom, officers discovered a significant amount of methamphetamine in various

containers throughout the room. Given the nature and location of the methamphetamine

found in the bedroom, appellant contends the jury could have reasonably attributed some

of the methamphetamine to the other persons in the room at the time of the search.

However, such an interpretation of the evidence is unreasonable given appellant's

statement that those individuals were not involved in drugs.         Moreover, the evidence

                                              -8-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-03-029

revealed that those individuals were mere acquaintances of appellant, not roommates, and

that he was the only resident home at the time of the search. Additionally, although

appellant denied the room was his bedroom, officers found personal items of appellant's in

the bedroom, and appellant acknowledged it was where he "hung out" and kept his

belongings. Appellant further admitted to using methamphetamine regularly and completed

a sale of methamphetamine in the same bedroom just two days prior to the search. Thus,

while appellant denied that the methamphetamine was his, there was no evidence

presented that the methamphetamine found in the bedroom belonged to anyone other than

appellant.

       {¶ 21} Turning to the remaining methamphetamine discovered under the couch, it is

undisputed that appellant was not in the vicinity of the couch at the time of the search. As

such, it is possible the jury could have determined that the 6.91 grams of methamphetamine

found under the couch belonged to one of the individuals in the living room at that time.

However, even if the methamphetamine found under the couch belonged to someone other

than appellant, the additional methamphetamine found in the bedroom was not less than

five times the bulk amount.      Consequently, even when excluding the 6.91 grams of

methamphetamine found under the couch, the total methamphetamine belonging to

appellant, i.e., 68.27 grams, was greater than five times the bulk amount. As such, there

was insufficient evidence presented to allow the jury to reasonably reject the greater

offenses of second-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs and aggravated

trafficking in drugs, and instead find appellant guilty on the lesser included offenses, and an

instruction on the lesser included offenses was not warranted.

                                              -9-
                                                                Butler CA2023-03-029

{¶ 22} In light of the foregoing, appellant's assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 23} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                      - 10 -