State v. Dalton , 2013 Ohio 3839 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Dalton, 2013-Ohio-3839.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 24952
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 11-CR-959/1
v. :
:
ALVIS G. DALTON : (Criminal Appeal from
: (Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 6th day of September, 2013.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. #0020084, Montgomery
County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box
972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JOSHUA M. KIN, Atty. Reg. #0086965, Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, Co., 2700 Kettering
Tower, Dayton Ohio 45423
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Alvis G. Dalton was indicted on July 1, 2011 on one count of trafficking in
2
heroin, in an amount equal to or exceeding fifty unit doses, but less than one-hundred unit doses,
a third-degree felony, in trial court case number 11-CR-959/1, which is the subject of this appeal.
A suppression motion was filed on August 24, 2011, and an evidentiary hearing was held thereon
on October 13, 2011.
{¶ 2} The underlying facts were presented at the suppression hearing. On January 6,
2011, detective Michael Fuller of the Dayton Police Department narcotics bureau was working
undercover and driving an unmarked car. (Motion to Suppress T. at 6-7). A confidential
informant was a passenger. Detective Fuller was making narcotics purchases from a
drug-trafficking organization that was using a “money phone” and the phone name of “Sonny.”
(Id. at 7). Fuller described a “money phone” as a cellular phone used only for drug transactions
by several individuals, all of whom would use the phone name. (Id. at 7-8). Fuller called the
phone and arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin. (Id. at 8). A meeting was set up at
approximately 2:00 p.m. in an alley off of West Second Street in Dayton. (Id. at 9). At the
location, defendant Dalton and another man approached Fuller’s car from the rear. (Id.). Dalton
approached the driver’s window, “so [Fuller] handed him $600 and he handed [Fuller] a large
baggie of heroin-filled gel caps. Ultimately, it was 71 or 72 gel caps.” (Id. at 10). Dalton walked
away with the other individual, and they briefly met a third person at the mouth of the alley
before going their separate ways. (Id. at 12). Dalton soon was apprehended by other undercover
detectives who were in the area monitoring Fuller with wireless listening devices. (Id. at 11).
Dalton had $447 of marked buy money on him when arrested. (Id. at 11, 22). After hearing the
evidence presented, the trial court found an adequate basis for Dalton’s arrest and overruled the
suppression motion.
[Cite as State v. Dalton, 2013-Ohio-3839.]
{¶ 3} Dalton also had a pending indictment in trial court case number 11-CR-747,
which included charges for possession of heroin in an amount of ten grams or more, but less than
fifty grams, a second-degree felony, and assault on a peace officer (identified as a parole officer),
a fourth-degree felony. On November 3, 2011, Dalton simultaneously entered guilty pleas to the
trafficking charge in case number 11-CR-959/1 and the two identified charges in case number
11-CR-747. On December 1, 2011, he was sentenced to prison for a mandatory four years on the
second-degree felony possession charge and a concurrent eleven months on the assault charge.
On the third-degree trafficking charge, he was sentenced to serve three years in prison
concurrently with the four-year sentence for the second-degree possession charge.
{¶ 4} Dalton separately appealed case number 11-CR-747, and that appeal was docketed
as appellate case number CA 24953. In that case, Dalton’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In a July 26, 2012
opinion disposing of the appeal, we stated:
Pursuant to Anders v.California, supra, we have conducted an independent review
of the record to determine whether there are any potential assignments of error
having arguable merit. We have not found any. Our review of the plea colloquy
reveals the trial court scrupulously complied with Crim. R. 11 and determined that
the pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made. Our review of the sentencing
transcript and entry demonstrates the sentence is not contrary to law and is within
the statutory range.
State v. Dalton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24953, 2012-Ohio-3386, ¶ 8.
{¶ 5} Dalton’s separate appeal in this case languished, in part because his original
appellate counsel assigned as error that the conviction and sentence were against the weight of
4
the evidence. We repeatedly have stated, including in Dalton’s companion appeal, that “[b]y
entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives his right to present manifest-weight-of-the-evidence or
sufficiency-of-the-evidence attacks against his convictions.” Id. at ¶ 7, citing State v. Griggs, 103
Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, 814 N.E.2d 51. However, in the companion appeal there had not
been any evidentiary hearing on a suppression motion, so we disposed of that case as submitted.
In this case (CA 24952), where there had been an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress, we
determined that Dalton had not received effective assistance of appellate counsel. We removed
his appointed counsel and appointed new appellate counsel.
{¶ 6} On June 13, 2013, Dalton’s new appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders, asserting the absence of any meritorious issues for our review. In the Anders brief,
appellate counsel did identify a potential issue as to whether the defendant’s guilty plea complied
with Crim. R. 11 to ensure that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. Counsel indicated,
however, that he did not find any meritorious issues. We notified Dalton of the Anders filing and
offered him ample time to file a pro se brief. None has been received.
{¶ 7} As we indicated in the companion appeal, which dealt with a simultaneous plea
colloquy, the trial court “scrupulously” followed Crim R. 11 and the pleas were knowing and
voluntary. Nonetheless, we have again completely reviewed the transcript and reach the same
conclusion here. We also note that at the time of the plea, the court specifically asked Dalton if he
understood that by entering a plea he was giving up his right to appeal any pre-trial rulings. He
stated that he did. Accordingly, the potential issue raised by counsel lacks arguable merit.
{¶ 8} Pursuant to Anders, we also have conducted an independent review of the
record, including the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, to determine whether there
5
are any potential assignments of error having arguable merit. Finding none, we conclude that this
appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
FAIN, P.J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Carley J. Ingram
Joshua M. Kin
Alvis G. Dalton
Hon. Mary L. Wiseman