State v. Layne , 2011 Ohio 1621 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Layne, 2011-Ohio-1621.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 10 CA 0023
ANGELA LAYNE :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of
Common Pleas Case No. 09 CR 209
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 31, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee:
JAMES L. DYE GREGG MARX
P.O. Box 161 201 South Broad Street, 4th Floor
Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
[Cite as State v. Layne, 2011-Ohio-1621.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Angela Layne, appeals the judgment of the Fairfield
County Court of Common Pleas, convicting her of one count of Deception to Obtain a
Dangerous Drug, a felony of the second degree, one count of Deception to Obtain a
Dangerous Drug, a felony of the third degree, one count of Deception to Obtain a
Dangerous Drug, a felony of the fourth degree, two counts of Trafficking in Drugs,
felonies of the fourth degree, and three counts of Trafficking in Drugs, felonies of the
fifth degree. The State of Ohio is Plaintiff-Appellee.
{¶2} In September, 2007, Agent William Padgett of the State of Ohio Pharmacy
Board began an investigation into a group of individuals who were traveling to Florida,
obtaining prescriptions in Florida and filling them in Ohio for dangerous drugs.1 The
investigation became stagnant for approximately two years until March, 2009.
{¶3} On March 28, 2009, Agent Padgett received information that Appellant
was attempting to fill a prescription from Florida in Fairfield County, Ohio. Agent
Padgett traveled to the pharmacy and approached Appellant as she was at the
pharmacy window and showed her his Pharmacy Board credentials, including his badge
and his identification. He escorted Appellant to the break room in the pharmacy and
questioned her for approximately an hour. He did not Mirandize her before questioning
her.
{¶4} On March 30, 2009, Agent Padgett again met with Appellant, along with
two members of the Major Crimes Unit Task Force, at a park. Appellant reiterated the
information that she conveyed during the first meeting to the detectives of the Major
1
The State of Ohio does not provide its own Statement of the Case or Facts; therefore, we presume that they accept
the Appellant’s Statement of the Case and Facts as being accurate.
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 3
Crimes Unit. Appellant was not advised of her Miranda rights, but agreed to meet the
officers and Agent Padgett at the park and answered questions.
{¶5} At the conclusion of the conversation, Appellant agreed to provide the
detectives with information regarding the prescription drug ring. Appellant failed to
contact the detectives, and a warrant was issued for her arrest for her part in the drug
ring.
{¶6} Appellant contacted Agent Padgett and stated that she knew about the
warrant and asked if he would drive her to the police station so that she could turn
herself in. Agent Padgett stated that no incriminating comments were made during that
ride that he can recall.
{¶7} The fourth contact between Agent Padgett and Appellant occurred at the
Fairfield County Jail. Appellant requested that Agent Padgett visit her at the jail so that
she could speak to him regarding her bond and charges. No evidence was presented
that Appellant made any incriminating statements, or that Agent Padgett asked
Appellant any questions.
{¶8} Appellant was indicted on June 26, 2009, on a fourteen count indictment
alleging one count each of Deception to Obtain a Dangerous Drug, in violation of R.C.
2925.22(A), as felonies of the second, third, and fourth degrees; three counts of
Trafficking in Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), felonies of the fourth degree;
three counts of Trafficking in Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), felonies of the
fifth degree; three counts of Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs, in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1), felonies of the second degree; and two counts of Aggravated Trafficking
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 4
in Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), felonies of the third degree. Appellant
initially pled not guilty to all counts.
{¶9} On September 10, 2009, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress, requesting
that all statements or evidence obtained as a result of the investigation of the Ohio State
Board of Pharmacy be suppressed. The State filed responses on October 12, 2009,
and November 18, 2009. Appellant filed a supplemental memorandum on November
13, 2009. A hearing was held on October 12, 2009, and November 5, 2009.
{¶10} On Jaunary 27, 2010, the trial court issued a written decision, denying
Appellant’s Motion. Appellant subsequently entered a no contest plea to Counts 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, 8, 9, and 12 of the indictment, and was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirteen
years, six months in prison.
{¶11} Appellant now appeals the decision of the trial court and raises one
Assignment of Error:
{¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND THEREBY DEPRIVED
APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY FAILING TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT FIRST
ADVISING THE DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT OR HER OTHER
MIRANDA RIGHTS.”
I.
{¶13} In Appellant’s sole assignment of error, she argues that the trial court
erred in failing to suppress her statements to Agent Padgett and the Major Crimes
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 5
Detectives during the investigation of the prescription drug ring that she was involved in.
We disagree.
{¶14} Appellate review of a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress
involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328,
713 N.E.2d 1. During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of
fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate
witness credibility. State v. Brooks, (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 661 N.E.2d 1030. A
reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported
by competent, credible evidence. State v. Metcalf (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 675
N.E.2d 1268. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must independently
determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court’s conclusion, whether
the trial court’s decision meets the applicable legal standard. State v. Williams (1993),
86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141.
{¶15} There are three methods of challenging a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress on appeal. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court’s finding of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether the trial
court’s findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See State v.
Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 1 Ohio B. 57, 437 N.E.2d 583; and State v. Klein
(1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 597 N.E.2d 1141. Second, an appellant may argue that
the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In
that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law.
See State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141. Finally, an
appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issues
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 6
raised in a motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court
must independently determine, without deference to the trial court’s conclusion, whether
the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry (1994),
95 Ohio App.3d 623, 620 N.E.2d 906.
{¶16} A person must be in police custody before they can invoke the protections
of the Fifth Amendment. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16
L.Ed.2d 694. For Miranda to apply, it must first be established that the subject being
interrogated was indeed “in custody.” In the court below, as well as before this Court,
the State urges an initial finding that Appellant was not “in custody” during the first three
interviews with Agent Padgett and the Major Crimes Unit detectives. Therefore,
according to the State, compliance with Miranda was unnecessary.
{¶17} We agree. Appellant’s first statement was made at a pharmacy, in a
break room, where Appellant was free to leave. Agent Padgett had no arrest authority,
did not have handcuffs, and he indicated that he offered to go out to tell Appellant’s
family who was waiting with her what was going on and that she would be out later.
Appellant agreed that she did not wish to speak in public with Agent Padgett, but that
she did not believe that she could decline to go with him.
{¶18} Appellant met Padgett and two detectives from the Major Crimes Unit
Task Force at a park for her second set of statements, which mirrored her first set of
statements. She was seated in the backseat of Agent Padgett’s car, but the car was not
locked and she was free to leave. She voluntarily drove herself to the park to talk with
the men. Even after making inculpatory statements, Appellant was not arrested and
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 7
agreed to contact the detectives later that week with additional information on others
involved in the drug ring.
{¶19} Appellant’s third encounter with Agent Padgett occurred when she called
him and asked him to drive her to the police station so that she could turn herself in
when she realized there was a warrant for her arrest. According to Agent Padgett,
Appellant did not make any inculpatory statements during the ride and that most of her
comments were directed towards giving him directions to the jail. He even left her in the
front seat of the car alone, with the car running, and Appellant stayed in the car.
{¶20} The fourth and final encounter between Agent Padgett and Appellant
occurred while Appellant was in custody. However, the meeting occurred at Appellant’s
request. Agent Padgett asked no questions of her and Appellant asked him about
getting her bond reduced. There is no evidence that Appellant made any statements in
response to questioning by Agent Padgett in the jail.
{¶21} Accordingly, Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.
Fairfield County, Case No. 10 CA 0023 8
{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of
Appeals is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
[Cite as State v. Layne, 2011-Ohio-1621.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANGELA LAYNE :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 10 CA 0023
:
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed
to Appellant.
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER