State v. Siefer , 2011 Ohio 1868 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Siefer, 2011-Ohio-1868.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-09-24
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROSEMARY A. SIEFER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2008 CR 163
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 18, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Deborah Kovac Rump for Appellant
Drew Wortman for Appellee
Case No. 5-09-24
ROGERS, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Rosemary Siefer, appeals from the judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County sentencing her to a ten-year and
five-month prison term and ordering her to pay $200.00 in restitution to the
Hancock County METRICH Enforcement Unit. On appeal, Siefer contends that
the trial court erred in sentencing her on two counts of possession of cocaine and
one count of aggravated possession of drugs, as the offenses were allied offenses
of similar import; that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to a
ten-year and five-month prison sentence; that the trial court erred in failing to
properly include a term of post-release control in her sentence in violation of R.C.
2967.28; that the sentence was void pursuant to Crim.R. 32 for failing to include
the means of conviction in the judgment entry; that her right to a fair trial was
violated by prosecutorial misconduct; that the trial court erred in instructing the
jury on constructive possession; and, that she was denied the effective assistance
of counsel. Based on the following, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} In July 2008, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Siefer on
Count One: engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C.
2923.32(A)(1), a felony of the first degree; Count Two: trafficking in cocaine in
an amount that equals or exceeds 1 gram but is less than 5 grams that is crack
cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A), (C)(4)(c), a felony of the fourth degree;
-2-
Case No. 5-09-24
Count Three: possession of cocaine in an amount that equals or exceeds 25 grams
but is less than 100 grams that is crack cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),
(C)(4)(e), a felony of the first degree; Count Four: possession of cocaine in an
amount that equals or exceeds 25 grams but less than 100 grams that is not crack
cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(c), a felony of the third degree;
and, Count Five: aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),
(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. The indictment arose following a controlled
drug purchase from and subsequent search of Siefer’s residence.
{¶3} In August 2008, Siefer entered a not guilty plea to all counts in the
indictment.
{¶4} In March 2009, Siefer filed a motion to reveal the identity of the
confidential informant mentioned in the State’s discovery response.
{¶5} In May 2009, a final pre-trial conference was held, during which the
State informed Siefer that Charles Roberts was the confidential informant. The
next day the State provided Siefer with Roberts’ LEADS report.1
{¶6} In May 2009, the case proceeded to jury trial. Prior to the impaneling
of the jury, the State moved to dismiss Count One of the indictment. Thereafter,
the State made its opening statement, stating the following, in pertinent part:
A confidential informant is not a police officer. It’s an average
citizen. And typically a confidential informant comes in
1
LEADS stands for “Law Enforcement Automated Data System.”
-3-
Case No. 5-09-24
different forms. * * * Former drug user. Maybe former drug
dealer. * * * One of the people that METRICH has been using
for a number of years now is a man by the name of Charles
Roberts. A number of years ago, Charles Roberts got in trouble
with the law. * * * And sometime around eight or so years ago,
he decided he wanted to work as a confidential informant for the
police. * * * And one of the things that confidential informants
do, they get paid per buy. * * * The police officers, they were
happy with his performance, so they continued to use him for a
number of years. * * * Back in the fall, he came to Detective
Francis and said, I believe I can buy crack from Rosemary
Siefer. Because of his work in the past they believed him and
they said set up a deal. So that’s what he did. He set up a deal
with Rosemary Siefer because he knew she would sell him drugs.
Trial Tr., p. 178.
{¶7} Moreover, the State discussed the amount of drugs seized from
Siefer’s residence during the execution of the search warrant, stating that the
“crack cocaine weighed about twelve grams” (Id. at 181), and that “they found
twenty-six grams of crack cocaine.” (Id. at 182). At no time did Siefer object to
the State’s opening statement.
{¶8} The State’s first witness was Detective Michael Swope of the Findlay
Police Department, who testified that he was a member of the METRICH Drug
Taskforce; that, in November 2007, he was involved in a controlled drug purchase
with Roberts as a confidential informant; that, as a result of the controlled drug
purchase, they obtained a search warrant to Siefer’s residence; and, that, upon
searching the residence, they found security cameras both inside and outside the
residence as well as inside Siefer’s bedroom.
-4-
Case No. 5-09-24
{¶9} On the second day of trial the State called Roberts to the stand.
Before Roberts testified, Siefer objected to his proffered testimony, contending
that she was not afforded proper opportunity to speak with Roberts. The trial
court overruled Siefer’s objection, noting that Roberts’ identity was disclosed to
Siefer during the final pre-trial conference and Siefer was given Roberts’ LEADS
report. Despite its ruling, the trial court granted Siefer’s trial counsel time to
speak with Roberts prior to Roberts’ testimony.
{¶10} Roberts testified that he was acting as a confidential informant for
the METRICH Drug Taskforce on the day of the controlled drug purchase from
Siefer; that on the day of the controlled drug purchase Detective Francis was his
police handler; that he contacted Detective Francis stating that he could purchase
drugs from Siefer; that, prior to the controlled drug purchase, he met with
Detective Francis, who searched his person and car, and placed a wire on his
person; that he drove alone to the residence, where he encountered Siefer; that he
requested, and received, two grams of crack cocaine in exchange for two hundred
dollars; and, that, immediately following the purchase, he met with Detective
Francis, who took possession of the crack cocaine and searched his person and car.
{¶11} Roberts further testified that Siefer’s trial counsel visited him at his
residence before trial and after the first day of trial; that on both occasions he
declined to speak with Siefer’s trial counsel; that he also declined to speak with
-5-
Case No. 5-09-24
Siefer’s trial counsel during the meeting granted by the trial court; and, that he was
never directed to not speak with Siefer’s trial counsel.
{¶12} Detective Francis of the Findlay Police Department testified that he
was a member of the METRICH Drug Taskforce; that Roberts contacted him
stating that he could purchase drugs from Siefer; that, on November 14, 2007, he
met with Roberts, searched his person and car, placed a wire on his person, and
gave him two hundred dollars to purchase crack cocaine; that, upon completion of
the controlled drug purchase, Roberts met with him, and gave him the suspected
crack cocaine purchased from Siefer; that, as a result of the controlled drug
purchase, he submitted an affidavit for a search warrant, which was granted; that
upon execution of the search warrant, in December 2007, three individuals were
found in the residence where Roberts had purchased the suspected crack cocaine
from Siefer; that one of those individuals was Siefer, and that she appeared highly
intoxicated; that Siefer told him that the bedroom, as well as the safe in the
bedroom, was hers; that Siefer was asked to open the safe, which she attempted to
do unsuccessfully; that Siefer stated the contents of the safe were hers; that he
obtained a second search warrant to search the safe; that, among other things, the
safe contained 25.8 grams of crack cocaine, two baggies of powder cocaine
weighing 18.9 grams and 11.8 grams, respectively, and a single pill of Oxycodone;
that based on a water bill for the residence, real estate listings at the County
-6-
Case No. 5-09-24
Auditor’s Office, and a deed found in the safe, the residence belonged to Siefer;
and, that he told Siefer’s trial counsel to stop bothering Roberts.
{¶13} Thereafter, the State made its closing arguments, stating the
following, in pertinent part:
Finally, Charles Roberts. Charles Roberts is not a choir boy.
Charles Roberts is not an upstanding citizen. Charles Roberts is
and does have a criminal past. But as Detective Swope testified,
drug dealers don’t sell to choir boys. * * * So I have to use
people like Charles Roberts. Thank goodness for the Charles
Roberts who are willing to turn on people inside their own
communities like Rosemary Siefer. Either way doesn’t matter.
Charles Roberts is a criminal or he’s not a criminal, doesn’t
matter. Rosemary still sold him drugs. And he had nothing to
do with what was found inside her safe. Don’t let his criminal
past sway you on that. Regardless if he had prior felonies or not,
she still had drugs in her safe.
Trial Tr., p. 422-23.
{¶14} In addition, the State reiterated the amount of drugs seized from
Siefer’s residence, specifically the safe she claimed to own, stating that “a big
chunk of crack cocaine, and it weighs 25.8 grams,” was found in the safe, as well
as a total of 30.7 grams of powder cocaine and one Oxycodone pill. (Id. at 409).
The State also discussed the cameras located in and around the residence,
specifically the camera in Siefer’s bedroom, and the reasons one may install a
camera in their bedroom. At no time did Siefer object to the State’s closing
argument.
{¶15} The jury returned a verdict convicting Siefer on all four counts.
-7-
Case No. 5-09-24
{¶16} Subsequently, the matter proceeded to sentencing, at which the State
argued, in pertinent part:
Mr. Schuman has made reference to a limited criminal history,
but what’s ironic with regards to this limited criminal history it
involved two things, drugs, substance abuse, and offenses of
violence. We are here on peddling, trafficking, and possessing
drugs, and have a domestic violence, an offense of violence as a
prior conviction certainly should cause this Court some
concern.2
We have the Defendant’s behavior while on bond in the original
indictment. The Court is well aware her bond was revoked and
why was it revoked because she continued to test positive for
cocaine. Review of the PSI shows at least five positive tests
before she was taken back into custody. So while she was on PSI
she was given an opportunity to demonstrate her behavior and
she did exactly that, Your Honor. She did nothing during that
time when she was out on bond to demonstrate any type of
positive behavior.
Sentencing Tr., p. 16-17.
{¶17} Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Siefer to a seventeen-month
prison term on Count Two, a nine-year prison term on Count Three, a four-year
prison term on Count Four, and a eleven-month prison term on Count Five, with
the sentences in Counts Three, Four, and Five to be served concurrently with each
other, but consecutively to the sentence for Count Two, resulting in a total prison
term of ten-years and five-months. Additionally, the trial court ordered that Siefer
2
Review of Siefer’s PSI confirms the statements made by the State.
-8-
Case No. 5-09-24
pay $200.00 in restitution to the Hancock County Drug Task Force METRICH
Enforcement Unit.
{¶18} It is from this judgment Siefer appeals, presenting the following
assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT MERGING SIEFER’S
CONVICTIONS AS ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR
IMPORT.
Assignment of Error No. II
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY THE
LENGTHY SENTENCING IMPOSED, AND SUBJECTED
SIEFER TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN
VIOLATION OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Assignment of Error No. III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT COMPLYING WITH
R.C. 2967.28 WHEN IMPOSING SENTENCE. THE
SENTENCE IS UNAUTHORIZED AND VOID.
Assignment of Error No. IV
THE JUDGMENT ENTRY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH
CRIM.R. 32 AND IS VOID.
Assignment of Error No. V
THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF
MISCONDUCT THAT VIOLATED SIEFER’S RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS; SPECIFCALLY, A FAIR TRIAL.
-9-
Case No. 5-09-24
Assignment of Error No. VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PROVIDING THE JURY
WITH AN INSTRUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION GIVEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SIEFER
WAS CONSCIOUS OF THE PRESENCE OF THE DRUGS.
Assignment of Error No. VII
SIEFER’S TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT PROVIDE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE
DID NOT SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENTS
MADE BY SIEFER, OR HER CONDITION, AT THE TIME
OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.
{¶19} Due to the nature of Siefer’s assignments of error, we elect to address
her third and fourth assignments together, and last.
Assignment of Error No. I
{¶20} In her first assignment of error, Siefer contends that the trial court
erred by denying her motion to merge all four counts. Specifically, Siefer
contends that the crimes constitute allied offenses of similar import. We disagree.
{¶21} In determining whether two or more offenses should be merged, the
intent of the General Assembly is controlling. State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d
153, 2010-Ohio-6314, ¶46. We determine the General Assembly’s intent by
applying R.C. 2941.25, which expressly instructs courts to consider the offenses at
issue in light of the defendant’s conduct. Id. Under R.C. 2941.25, the court must
determine, prior to sentencing, whether the offenses were committed by the same
-10-
Case No. 5-09-24
conduct. Id., at ¶47. In so determining, the court should conduct the following
analysis:
“In determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar
import under R.C. 2941.25(A), the question is whether it is
possible to commit one offense and commit the other with the
same conduct, not whether it is possible to commit one without
committing the other. If the offenses correspond to such a
degree that the conduct of the defendant constituting
commission of one offense constitutes commission of the other,
then the offenses are of similar import.
“If the multiple offenses can be committed by the same conduct,
then the court must determine whether the offenses were
committed by the same conduct, i.e., “a single act, committed
with a single state of mind.” Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-
Ohio-4569, 895 N.E.2d 149, at ¶ 50 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting).
“If the answer to both questions is yes, then the offenses are
allied offenses of similar import and will be merged.
“Conversely, if the court determines that the commission of one
offense will never result in the commission of the other, or if the
offenses are committed separately, or if the defendant has
separate animus for each offense, then, according to R.C.
2941.25(B), the offenses will not merge.”
Id., at ¶¶48-51.
{¶22} “Trafficking in a controlled substance under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and
possession of that same controlled substance under R.C. 2925.11(A) are allied
offenses of similar import.” State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-
1625 at paragraph two of the syllabus. Accordingly, Siefer contends that Count
Two should merge with Counts Three, Four, and Five. We disagree.
-11-
Case No. 5-09-24
{¶23} The distinguishing fact between the case at bar and Cabrales is time,
specifically the time at which the offenses occurred. In Cabrales, the defendants
were pulled over by a police officer, who subsequently discovered a large quantity
of marijuana inside their vehicle. Cabrales, 2008-Ohio-1625, ¶2. Defendants
were charged with possession of and trafficking in marijuana. Id. In the case at
bar, the event that precipitated Count Two and the events that precipitated Counts
Three, Four, and Five occurred a month apart. As a result of the temporal
remoteness between Count Two and Counts Three, Four, and Five, we find that
the offenses were committed separately, and with separate animus. See Johnson
2010-Ohio-6314, at ¶51. Consequently, the trial court did not err in declining to
merge Count Two with Counts Three, Four, and Five.
{¶24} Siefer also contends that the trial court erred in declining to merge
Counts Three, Four, and Five. In resolving this contention we must address two
questions. First, what drugs did defendant possess? Second, did the General
Assembly intend for the possession of the drugs to constitute separate crimes?
{¶25} In the case at bar, Detective Francis testified that upon opening
Siefer’s safe he found 25.8 grams of crack cocaine, 30.7 grams of powder cocaine,
and one Oxycodone pill. Pursuant to R.C. 2925.11, possession of each
aforementioned drug constitutes a separate crime. R.C. 2925.11, provides as
follows:
-12-
Case No. 5-09-24
(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a
controlled substance.
***
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one
of the following:
(1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound, mixture,
preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the
exception of marihuana, cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, and hashish,
whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of
aggravated possession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall
be determined as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(b), (c), (d),
or (e) of this section, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony
of the fifth degree, and division (B) of section 2929.13 of the
Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison
term on the offender.
***
(4) If the drug involved in the violation is cocaine or a
compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing
cocaine, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of
possession of cocaine. The penalty for the offense shall be
determined as follows:
(c) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds twenty-
five grams but is less than one hundred grams of cocaine that is
not crack cocaine or equals or exceeds five grams but is less than
ten grams of crack cocaine, possession of cocaine is a felony of
the third degree, and the court shall impose as a mandatory
prison term one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of
the third degree.
***
-13-
Case No. 5-09-24
(e) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds five
hundred grams but is less than one thousand grams of cocaine
that is not crack cocaine or equals or exceeds twenty-five grams
but is less than one hundred grams of crack cocaine, possession
of cocaine is a felony of the first degree, and the court shall
impose as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms
prescribed for a felony of the first degree.
{¶26} Pursuant to the foregoing language, we find that the General
Assembly intended that possession of crack cocaine, cocaine, and Oxycodone, be
treated as separate crimes. See State v. Crisp, 3d Dist. No. 1-05-45, 2006-Ohio-
2509, ¶22 (finding that the legislature intended there to be a distinction between
crack cocaine and cocaine). If we were to find otherwise, as Siefer suggests, we
would essentially abrogate the General Assembly’s intent that possession of
certain drugs result in separate crimes, which would significantly and negatively
alter the legislation’s purpose and effect.
{¶27} Accordingly, we overrule Siefer’s first assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. II
{¶28} In her Second assignment of error, Siefer contends that the length of
the sentences imposed by the trial court constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
We disagree.
{¶29} An appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial
court’s sentencing decision. State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. No. 16-07-07, 2007-
Ohio-5774, ¶8, citing State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0007, 2004-Ohio-
-14-
Case No. 5-09-24
1181. A meaningful review means “that an appellate court hearing an appeal of a
felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the
trial court for re-sentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the
record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to
law.” Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774, at ¶8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at
¶44; R.C. 2953.08(G).
{¶30} The trial court has full discretion to sentence an offender to any term
of imprisonment within the statutory range without a requirement that it make
findings or give reasons for imposing the maximum sentence, more than the
minimum sentence, or ordering sentences to be served consecutively. State v.
Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, at paragraph seven of the syllabus.
{¶31} R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, 2929.13, and the unsevered portions of R.C.
2929.14 govern sentencing. State v. Petrik, 3d Dist. No. 3-10-06, 2010-Ohio-3671,
¶29, citing Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, at ¶36. R.C. 2929.11(A) and (B) provide as
follows:
(A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be
guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The
overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the
public from future crime by the offender and others and to
punish the offender. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing
court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender,
deterring the offender and others from future crime,
rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim
of the offense, the public, or both.
-15-
Case No. 5-09-24
(B) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably
calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony
sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, commensurate
with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's
conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with
sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.
{¶32} Additionally, when sentencing an offender, the trial court must
consider the factors set forth under R.C. 2929.12(B), (C), (D), and (E) relating to
the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the likelihood of the offender’s
recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(A); see also State v. Ramos, 3d Dist. No. 4-06-24, 2007-
Ohio-767, ¶25. However, the trial court is not required to make specific findings
of its consideration of the factors. State v. Kincade, 3d Dist. No. 16-09-20, 2010-
Ohio-1497, ¶8, citing State v. Amett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 2000-Ohio-302.
{¶33} Siefer points to nothing in the record that clearly and convincingly
demonstrates that the record does not support the sentences or that the sentences
are contrary to law. Each of the sentences imposed by the trial court fall within
the applicable statutory ranges. Furthermore, the trial court stated in its judgment
entry that it considered the factors set forth under R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2929.13,
along with the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11.
{¶34} Consequently, because we find that the trial court considered the
appropriate sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, and R.C.
2929.13, because the trial court has discretion to sentence an offender to any term
-16-
Case No. 5-09-24
of imprisonment within the statutory range and to order sentences to be served
concurrently or consecutively, and because Siefer has a prior criminal history,
evidencing a likelihood of recidivism under R.C. 2929.12(D), we find no error in
the trial court’s imposition of Siefer’s sentence.
{¶35} Accordingly, we overrule Siefer’s second assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. V
{¶36} In her fifth assignment of error, Siefer contends that the prosecutor
engaged in misconduct denying her right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Specifically, Siefer contends that she was denied a fair trial and due process of law
when the State delayed in identifying the confidential informant; when the State
elicited inadmissible and prejudicial testimony from Detective Francis; when the
State, during its opening statement, vouched for the credibility of Roberts’ and the
police officers, denigrated Siefer, and exaggerated the amount of drugs found;
when the State, during its closing argument, vouched for Roberts’ credibility,
exaggerated the amount of drugs found in the safe, and speculated about the
purpose of the video camera in Siefer’s bedroom. We disagree.
{¶37} “[T]he test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks were
improper and, if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the accused’s
substantial rights.” State v. Twyford, 94 Ohio St.3d 340, 354-55, 2002-Ohio-894;
see also, State v. Smith (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14-15. Thus, an improper
-17-
Case No. 5-09-24
question or remark made by the prosecutor can nevertheless fail to constitute
reversible error. State v. Satta, 3d Dist. No. 9-01-38, 2002-Ohio-5049, at ¶27.
Ultimately, “the touchstone of this analysis is the fairness of the trial, not the
culpability of the prosecutor.” Tywford, 94 Ohio St.3d at 355.
{¶38} First, Siefer challenges the State’s failure to timely disclose the
confidential informant’s identity. Initially, we note Crim.R. 16 governs the
disposition of this issue. The failure to comply with Crim.R. 16 is governed by
Crim.R. 16(L)(1), which provides:
The trial court may make orders regulating discovery not
inconsistent with this rule. If at any time during the course of the
proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a
party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued
pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit
the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the
party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or
it may make such other order as it deems just under the
circumstances.
{¶39} A prosecutor’s violation of Crim.R. 16 is reversible error, “only
when there is a showing that (1) the prosecution’s failure to disclose was willful,
(2) disclosure of the information prior to trial would have aided the accused’s
defense, and (3) the accused suffered prejudice.” State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d
53, 2005-Ohio-5981, ¶131, citing State v. Parson (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 442, 445.
{¶40} Two months prior to trial, Siefer filed a discovery motion requesting
the State to reveal the confidential informant’s identity. As far as the record is
-18-
Case No. 5-09-24
concerned, the State never filed a response to Siefer’s discovery request.
However, Crim.R. 16 does not require such a filing with the trial court. See State
v. Godfrey, 181 Ohio App.3d 75, 2009-Ohio-547 (Rogers, J., Concurring).
Accordingly, this fact alone is not sufficient to find reversible error.
{¶41} Pertinent to the disposition of Siefer’s contention is the fact that
Roberts’ identity was revealed to Siefer at the final pre-trial conference, which
occurred four days prior to trial. In addition, the State gave Siefer a copy of
Roberts’ LEADS report the following day. With this information, Siefer’s trial
counsel visited Roberts at his residence in attempt to speak with him, but Roberts
declined to speak. During trial, the issue was brought to the trial court’s attention,
but the trial court concluded Siefer had sufficient notice of the informant’s
identity. Nevertheless, prior to Roberts’ testimony, Siefer’s trial counsel was
allotted ten minutes to speak with Roberts, who again declined to speak.
{¶42} In light of the following, we find the State’s delay in disclosing
Roberts’ identity was neither willful nor prejudicial to Siefer. Siefer did request
Roberts’ identity to be disclosed two months prior to trial, yet at no time following
that motion did Siefer file a motion to compel the State to disclose Roberts’
identity. Looking at the record, it appears Siefer waited until the final pre-trial
conference to press the issue about the confidential informant’s identity, at which
point the State disclosed his identity and LEADS report. Accordingly, Siefer had
-19-
Case No. 5-09-24
Roberts’ information three full days prior to trial, which provided Siefer sufficient
time to meet with Roberts. See State v. Phillips (1993), 84 Ohio App.3d 836, 842-
43. Indeed, Siefer’s trial counsel visited Roberts’ residence several days before
trial, and attempted to speak with Roberts about the case. When the issue was
brought to the trial court’s attention, the trial court allotted time for Siefer’s trial
counsel to speak with Roberts’ prior to his testimony. See State v. James (1990),
3d Dist. No. 1-89-57, 1990 WL 35419. From these facts, we find Siefer was given
ample opportunity to learn about and meet with Roberts, and prepare for his
testimony. Moreover, if Siefer felt as though she needed more time to prepare for
Roberts’ testimony, she could have moved for a continuance. Accordingly, we
find nothing in the record that demonstrates that any delay in disclosing Roberts’
identity to Siefer was the result of willful conduct, nor anything to indicate
prejudice to Siefer.
{¶43} Second, Siefer contends that Roberts was directed to not speak with
Siefer’s trial counsel. The only evidence Siefer offers in support of this contention
is Detective Francis’ testimony, during which he testified that he told Siefer’s trial
counsel to leave Roberts alone. While we do not condone Detective Francis’
statement, this fact alone is not prejudicial to Siefer. First, Siefer’s trial counsel
should have been aware that Detective Francis’ statement did not prohibit him
from speaking to Roberts. In fact, it appears that Siefer’s trial counsel was aware
-20-
Case No. 5-09-24
of this fact, because after Detective Francis told counsel to stop bothering Roberts,
counsel visited Roberts’ residence. More importantly, Roberts testified that he
was never directed to not speak with Siefer’s trial counsel, and that he alone chose
not to speak. In light of Roberts’ testimony, and the absence of any countervailing
evidence, we find no prejudicial conduct occurred with regard to Roberts’ decision
to not speak with Siefer’s trial counsel.
{¶44} Third, Siefer contends that the State improperly elicited inadmissible
and prejudicial information from Detective Francis, and that such conduct
amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, Siefer challenges the
following colloquy:
Q: Why do you assume that those items on the table and in the
safe belong to Rosemary Siefer?
Mr. Schuman: Object, Your Honor. I don’t think that was in
the testimony.
The Court: I’m going to overrule. It’s up to the jury to make
these decisions as to what the evidence before them is.
Detective Francis: Due to the intelligence we received about the
residence, being it was her residence, she was present at the
time, yes, the drugs – they were in her possession.
Q: Specifically why do you say that?
A: She was at the residence and the drugs were there.
Q: Okay. Did you ever receive intelligence as to Rosemary
having drugs in her safe?
-21-
Case No. 5-09-24
A: Yes
Mr. Shuman: Object, Your Honor. That calls for hearsay
testimony.
The Court: Sustained. Jury instructed to disregard the question
and the answer.
Trial Tr., p. 386-87.
{¶45} We first note that the question to Detective Francis as to why he
assumed the items on the table and in the safe belonged to Siefer was improper.
The question calls for speculation and a conclusion on the part of the witness.
Such a question improperly invades the province of the jury. The jury is the fact
finder at trial and Detective Francis’ assumptions are immaterial and prejudicial.
However, given the substantial evidence presented at trial, including Siefer’s own
statements during the search, we find the error to be harmless in this case. The
later question regarding the receipt of intelligence about the contents of the safe,
was objected to and sustained. Therefore, we find that issue was properly resolved
by the trial court. As to the remainder of the colloquy, we find nothing which
amounts to prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, we find that no prosecutorial
misconduct took place with regard to testimony elicited during the State’s
examination of Detective Francis.
{¶46} Siefer’s two remaining contentions concerning prosecutorial
misconduct pertain to the State’s opening statement and closing argument. The
-22-
Case No. 5-09-24
test for prosecutorial misconduct during opening statements and closing arguments
is whether the remarks made by the prosecutor were improper and, if so, whether
they prejudicially affected a substantial right of the accused. State v. White, 82
Ohio St.3d 16, 22, 1998-Ohio-363. In opening statements and closing arguments,
prosecutors are entitled to some latitude regarding what the evidence has shown
and the inferences that can be drawn. State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 255,
1996-Ohio-81. “‘It is improper for an attorney to express his or her personal belief
or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused.’”
State v. Van Meter (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 592, 601, quoting State v. Williams,
79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12, 1997-Ohio-407. However, “[a] prosecutor may state his
opinion if it is based on the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Watson (1991),
61 Ohio St.3d 1, 10, abrogated on other grounds by State v. McGuire, 80 Ohio
St.3d 390, 1997-Ohio-335. Additionally, we review a prosecutor’s opening
statement and closing argument in its entirety. Id. If, in the context of the entire
trial, it appears clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found the
defendant guilty, even without the improper remarks, then the trial will not be
deemed unfair. State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 2006-Ohio-2417, at ¶45,
citing State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464, 2001-Ohio-4. Again, the
touchstone of this analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the
-23-
Case No. 5-09-24
prosecutor.” State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335, 2002-Ohio-6658, ¶140, quoting
Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209, 219.
{¶47} Siefer challenges the State’s opening statement in four respects.
First, she challenges the manner in which the prosecutor vouched for Roberts’
credibility. Second, she challenges her portrayal by the prosecutor. Third, she
challenges the manner in which the prosecutor vouched for the police officers’
credibility, particularly with regard to obtaining the second search warrant.
Fourth, she challenges the prosecutor’s discussion and phrasing concerning the
amount of drugs found in the safe.
{¶48} In reviewing the State’s entire opening statement, we find the
prosecutor’s statements were reasonably based on the evidence presented at trial.
In addition, we find that any opinions expressed during the opening statement
were proper, as they did not exceed the latitude of permissible opinions. Ballew,
76 Ohio St.3d at 255. Accordingly, we find that Siefer was not prejudiced by the
State’s opening statement.
{¶49} Next, Siefer challenges the State’s closing argument in three
respects. First, she challenges the manner in which the prosecutor vouched for
Roberts’ credibility. Second, she challenges the prosecutor’s discussion and
phrasing concerning the amount of drugs found in the safe. Third, she challenges
-24-
Case No. 5-09-24
the prosecutor’s speculation about the purpose of the video camera in Siefer’s
bedroom.
{¶50} In reviewing the State’s entire closing argument, we find the
prosecutor’s statements were reasonably based on the evidence presented at trial.
As to the first two challenged comments, we note that they are substantially
similar to those made in the State’s opening statement, which we found to be
proper. As to the prosecutor’s speculation concerning the purpose of the camera
in Siefer’s bedroom, we find that the prosecutor was simply drawing an inference,
which he may do, Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d at 255, as long as he is not expressing his
personal belief or opinion about the credibility of a witness or the accused. See
Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d at 12. Accordingly, we find that Siefer was not
prejudiced by the State’s closing argument.
{¶51} In finding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct with regard to
disclosing the confidential informant’s identity, and that none of the questions or
remarks made by the State during trial prejudicially affected Siefer’s substantial
right to a fair trial and due process of law, we overrule Siefer’s fifth assignment of
error.
-25-
Case No. 5-09-24
Assignment of Error No. VI
{¶52} In her sixth assignment of error, Siefer contends that the trial court
erred by giving the jury an instruction for constructive possession because there
was no evidence Siefer was aware of the drugs presence in the safe. We disagree.
{¶53} To prove a charge of possession of a controlled substance, the State
must show that the accused knowingly obtained, possessed, or used a controlled
substance. R.C. 2925.11(A). The Revised Code defines “possession” as “having
control over a thing or substance, but may not be inferred solely from mere access
to the thing or substance through 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. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490, 492, 1998-Ohio-193.
{¶54} Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Haynes (1971), 25
Ohio St.2d 264. For constructive possession to exist, the State must demonstrate
that the defendant was able to exercise dominion or control over the item, even
though the item may not be within his immediate physical possession. State v.
Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 316; see, also, State v. Alexander, 8th Dist. No.
90509, 2009-Ohio-597, ¶23; State v. Messer (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 51, 56.
Further, it must also be shown that the person was conscious of the object’s
-26-
Case No. 5-09-24
presence. State v. Hankerson (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 91. Circumstantial
evidence alone is sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. State v.
Jenks (1981), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272-73, paragraph two of the syllabus,
superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds in State v. Smith,
80 Ohio St.3d 89, 1997-Ohio-355.
{¶55} At trial, evidence of Siefer’s control over the safe was proffered via
Detective Francis’ testimony. During execution of the first search warrant, Siefer
stated that the bedroom, and the safe within it, was hers. Siefer also claimed the
contents of the safe were hers. Siefer even attempted to open the safe, but was
unsuccessful. In addition, there is nothing in the record that suggests anyone other
than Siefer had access to the safe, which bolsters the fact that Siefer exercised
some degree of control over the safe. Accordingly, we find that there was
sufficient evidence to conclude Siefer exercised control over the safe.
{¶56} As to her consciousness of the safe’s contents, specifically the crack
cocaine, powder cocaine, and Oxycodone, Siefer argues that her intoxication
abrogated her consciousness of the safe’s contents. We do not agree. When Siefer
caused the drugs to be placed in the safe she became conscious of their presence.
That consciousness lingers. The fact that her intoxication during the execution of
the search warrant may have affected her memory about the contents of the safe is
of no consequence in determining whether she was conscious of the drugs
-27-
Case No. 5-09-24
presence in the safe. Siefer admitted that the contents of the safe were hers. We
find that this fact, coupled with the absence of evidence that someone else had
access to the safe, provided sufficient evidence to conclude Siefer was conscious
of the drugs presence in the safe.
{¶57} In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court properly included
an instruction for constructive possession. Accordingly, we overrule Siefer’s sixth
assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. VII
{¶58} In her seventh assignment of error, Siefer contends that trial counsel
was ineffective because he did not seek suppression of Siefer’s condition and
statements she made during the execution of the search warrant. We disagree.
{¶59} An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that trial
counsel’s performance fell below objective standards of reasonable representation
and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio
St.3d 136, paragraph two of syllabus. To show that a defendant has been
prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant must prove that there
exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome at trial
would have been different. Id., at paragraph three of syllabus. “Reasonable
probability” is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of
the trial. State v. Waddy (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 433, superseded by
-28-
Case No. 5-09-24
constitutional amendment on other grounds as recognized by State v. Smith, 80
Ohio St.3d 89, 103, 1997-Ohio-355.
{¶60} Furthermore, the court must look to the totality of the circumstances
and not isolated instances of an allegedly deficient performance. State v. Malone
(1989), 2d Dist. No. 10564, 1989 WL 150798. “Ineffective assistance does not
exist merely because counsel failed ‘to recognize the factual or legal basis for a
claim, or failed to raise the claim despite recognizing it.’” Id., quoting Smith v.
Murray (1986), 477 U.S. 527, 535.
{¶61} The United States Supreme Court has held that the “failure to file a
suppression motion does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel”
Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986), 477 U.S. 365, 384, cited in State v. Madrigal, 87
Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 2000-Ohio-448. There must also be a reasonable probability
that the motion will be successful. State v. Ligon, 3d Dist. No. 4-2000-25, 2001-
Ohio-2231. Thus, this Court’s determination of whether Siefer’s trial counsel was
ineffective relies upon whether there was a reasonable probability that a motion to
suppress would have been successful. State v. Pierce, 3d Dist. No. 11-09-05,
2010-Ohio-478, ¶34.
{¶62} First, Siefer contends that her trial counsel was ineffective because
he did not attempt to suppress evidence of Siefer’s physical condition during the
execution of the search warrant. To be successful, a motion to suppress the
-29-
Case No. 5-09-24
introduction of Siefer’s physical condition during the execution of the search
warrant would have to challenge the legality of the search itself. Had the police
unlawfully entered Siefer’s residence any evidence discovered therein would be
inadmissible. Siefer did file a motion to suppress concerning the first search
warrant, but the trial court denied the motion, which was not appealed.3
Accordingly, the record reflects that the police, including Detective Francis,
lawfully entered Siefer’s residence. Once lawfully inside, anything Detective
Francis witnessed as to Siefer’s physical condition, such as her intoxicated state, is
properly admissible. As a result, we find that a motion to suppress Siefer’s
condition would not have been successful.
{¶63} Second, Siefer contends that her trial counsel was ineffective because
he did not attempt to suppress the statements Siefer made during the execution of
the search warrant. In order to suppress her statements, Siefer would have to
demonstrate that her statements were unlawfully obtained by the police. Siefer
was in custody at the time she identified the bedroom, safe, and contents of the
safe as hers. However, nothing in the record demonstrates that Siefer was forced,
coerced, or otherwise unlawfully persuaded to make those statements. Instead, the
record demonstrates that Siefer freely made the statements. Without any evidence
3
Even if the denial of the suppression motion were appealed, review of the record does not indicate that the
trial court erred in overruling Siefer’s motion.
-30-
Case No. 5-09-24
to suggest otherwise, we cannot find, with reasonable certainty, that a motion to
suppress Siefer’s statements would have succeeded.
{¶64} Consequently, because we find no error in trial counsel’s failure to
file a motion to suppress Siefer’s condition and statements, we find no error in
trial counsel’s performance.
{¶65} Accordingly, we overrule Siefer’s seventh assignment of error.
Assignments of Error No. III & IV
{¶66} In her third and fourth assignments of error, Siefer contends that the
trial court improperly informed her about the terms of her post-release control, and
did not comply with Crim.R. 32(C). In November 2010, finding that the trial court
did err, this Court stayed the appeal, and remanded the case back to the trial court
for resentencing. The trial court resentenced Siefer in December 2010. Upon
review of the latest judgment entry, we find that the trial court properly
resentenced Siefer. Accordingly, we find Siefer’s third and fourth assignments of
error to be moot, and we decline to address them. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶67} Having found no error prejudicial to Siefer herein, in the particulars
assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jnc
-31-