State v. Kremer , 2018 Ohio 3339 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Kremer, 2018-Ohio-3339.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NOS. CA2017-07-115
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CA2017-07-116
: OPINION
- vs - 8/20/2018
:
VINCENT W. KREMER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 16 CR 31735
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee
Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., Christopher Pagan, 1501 First Avenue, Middletown, Ohio 45044,
for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Vincent Kremer, appeals his conviction and sentence in
the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand this matter to the trial court.
{¶ 2} On March 14, 2016, Kremer was indicted in Case No. 16CR31735 on three
counts of aggravated trafficking in 25C-NBOMe, aggravated trafficking in Psilocyn [sic]
mushrooms, aggravated possession of Psilocyn [sic] mushrooms, aggravated possession of
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
25C-NBOMe, possession of Clonazepam, and possession of criminal tools. Kremer was
released on bond and placed on electronic monitored house arrest ("EMHA").
{¶ 3} One day before he was scheduled to appear for a negotiated plea hearing,
Kremer removed his EMHA device. Kremer was found later that day selling drugs at the
Baymont Inn located in Mason. As a result, the trial court revoked Kremer's bond. While in
jail, Kremer called an individual, accused him of stealing drugs, and threatened that he would
"get it" if the individual did not put $500 in his commissary account.
{¶ 4} On August 8, 2016, Kremer was indicted on new charges in Case No.
16CR32152 for possession of LSD, trafficking in LSD, aggravated possession of DMT,
aggravated trafficking in DMT, aggravated possession of Fluoro-AMB, aggravated trafficking
in Fluoro-AMB, possession of criminal tools, and extortion. Thereafter, on April 12, 2017,
Kremer pled guilty to all charges contained in both indictments and received a 13-year prison
sentence. Kremer now appeals, raising five assignments of error for review. For ease of
discussion, we have reordered Kremer's assignments of error.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} KREMER'S CONVICTION IS CONTRARY TO LAW AS THE COURT LACKED
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO ENTER A CONVICTION.
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, Kremer argues the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to enter a conviction. The limited issue before this court is whether the
indictments charge an offense, which properly invokes the trial court's subject matter
jurisdiction. We find Kremer's argument lacks merit.
{¶ 8} "[T]he Ohio Constitution guarantees an accused that the essential facts
constituting the offense for which he is tried will be found in the indictment by the grand jury."
State v. Jackson, 134 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-5561, ¶ 12. "An indictment meets
constitutional requirements if it 'first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly
-2-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him
to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.'" State
v. Mielke, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-08-079, 2013-Ohio-1612, ¶ 30, quoting Jackson at
¶ 13.
{¶ 9} In Jackson, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "for the purpose of identifying the
drug involved in a drug-trafficking offense under R.C. 2925.03(A), an indictment is sufficient if
it names the schedule in which the drug appears." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. In
so holding, the Ohio Supreme Court noted "that the schedule of the drug involved"
sufficiently puts the defendant "on notice of the severity of the offense, i.e., trafficking or
aggravated trafficking." Id. at ¶ 20, citing State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 479 (1983).
{¶ 10} Kremer challenges counts one, two, three, and six in Case No. 16CR31735
and counts five and six in Case No. 16CR32152 arguing the respective drugs, i.e., 25C-
NBOMe and Fluoro-AMB, were not Schedule I controlled substances at the time of his arrest.
{¶ 11} However, following review, we find Kremer's argument is without merit. In the
first indictment, the state stated that Kremer trafficked and possessed "25C-NBOMe, a
Schedule I controlled substance." Likewise, the second indictment stated that Kremer
possessed and trafficked "Fluoro-AMB, a schedule I controlled substance." As a result, the
challenged counts in Kremer's indictments properly identified the schedule of the drug.
Therefore, the indictments satisfy Jackson for purposes of identifying the drug offense.
Kremer's claim otherwise lacks merit.
{¶ 12} In reaching this decision, we also disagree with Kremer's contention that forms
the basis of this assignment of error. Though he claims otherwise, 25C-NBOMe and Fluoro-
AMB were both Schedule I controlled substances at the time of his arrest. 21 C.F.R.
1308.11(h)(5); Ohio Adm.Code 4729-11-02(B). Finally, we note the well-established law that
"by pleading guilty, a defendant admits to committing the offense as charged." State v.
-3-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
Jordan, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-04-051, 2015-Ohio-575. Simply stated, a guilty plea
is a complete admission of the defendant's guilt, and also waives "any deficiency in the
indictment." State v. Barton, 108 Ohio St.3d 402, 2006-Ohio-1324, ¶ 73. Kremer's claim
otherwise lacks merit. Therefore, finding no merit to Kremer's claims raised herein, Kremer's
first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT VIOLATED KREMER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
{¶ 15} Relying on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hand, 149 Ohio
St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, Kremer argues in his second assignment of error that the trial
court committed plain error by imposing a sentencing enhancement based on a prior juvenile
adjudication. Kremer also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
counsel did not raise this issue before the trial court. We agree that counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise this issue.
{¶ 16} In Hand, the Ohio Supreme Court held that it "is a violation of due process to
treat a juvenile adjudication as the equivalent of an adult conviction for purposes of
enhancing a penalty for a later crime." Id. at ¶ 1. In so holding, the Ohio Supreme Court
explained that "[q]uite simply, a juvenile adjudication is not a conviction of a crime and should
not be treated as one." Id. at ¶ 38.
{¶ 17} There are only limited instances where a defendant who pleads guilty to an
offense may claim ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Indeed, a plea of guilty
waives the right to claim that one was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel, except
to the extent that such ineffective assistance made the plea less than knowing, intelligent,
and voluntary. State v. McMahon, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2009-06-008, 2010-Ohio-2055,
¶ 33. When the alleged error underlying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is ineffective
-4-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
assistance of counsel, the movant must show that (1) his counsel's performance was
deficient; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not
have pled guilty. Id. at ¶ 34.
{¶ 18} Kremer pled guilty to count seven in Case No. 16CR31735 for possession of
drugs with a previous conviction for a drug abuse offense in violation of R.C.
2925.11(C)(2)(b). That statute provides that possession of drugs is a first-degree
misdemeanor unless the offender has previously been convicted of a drug abuse offense,
thereby raising the offense to a fifth-degree felony. Here, Kremer had a prior juvenile
adjudication for a drug abuse offense, but no prior adult conviction. Consistent with Hand,
Kremer's juvenile adjudication should not have been used to enhance his penalty to a fifth-
degree felony. Nevertheless, Kremer's trial counsel did not raise this issue below.
{¶ 19} We agree that trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to raise this issue
in the trial court. Unlike in prior cases where this issue has been raised on appeal, the
decision in Hand was released prior to Kremer's guilty plea or conviction. See State v.
Carney, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160660, 2017-Ohio-8585, ¶ 10. A review of the decision in
Hand should have alerted Kremer's trial counsel to the fact that Kremer should have only
been charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, as opposed to the fifth-degree felony.
Therefore, we find Kremer's counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness with
respect to count seven, possession of drugs with a previous conviction for a drug abuse
offense in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(2)(b).
{¶ 20} We also find that Kremer was prejudiced by counsel's actions in entering his
guilty plea on that count. In this case, there is a reasonable probability that Kremer would not
have pled guilty to count seven as an enhanced penalty because, pursuant to Hand, his
juvenile adjudication could not be used as a sentence enhancement on that charge.
Although we acknowledge that Kremer pled guilty to numerous offenses and his sentence on
-5-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
that count was ordered to be served concurrently with several other sentences, Kremer is still
prejudiced by pleading guilty to an enhanced penalty for which an underlying conviction did
not exist. The additional felony conviction in this case is prejudicial.
{¶ 21} In light of the foregoing, we find Kremer received ineffective assistance of
counsel only as to count seven in Case No. 16CR31735 for possession of drugs with a
previous conviction for a drug abuse offense in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(2)(b). As a
result, we find his conviction on that count should be reversed and remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. Kremer's second assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 23} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING KREMER WITHOUT BAIL AND
BY NOT IMPOSING A NEW BAIL AMOUNT FOLLOWING NEW CRIMINAL CHARGES.
{¶ 24} In his fourth assignment of error, Kremer argues the trial court erred by
denying him bail following his indictment on new criminal charges. Kremer also alleges a
new charge of ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree.
{¶ 25} "When a 'court determines that the accused has violated conditions of bail,
whether the conditions be express or implied, the accused is subject to the court's
sanctioning authority for violation of the conditions, including revocation of bail.'" State v.
Wright, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-09-023, 2010-Ohio-2620, ¶ 32, quoting In re Mason, 116
Ohio App.3d 451, 454 (7th Dist.1996). The decision of the trial court in this regard is
reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. Id., citing State v. Clinkscale, 177 Ohio App.3d
294, 2008-Ohio-1677, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.). An abuse of discretion is more than a mistake of law
or a lapse of judgment, the term connotes that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable
or unconscionable. State v. Statzer, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-02-022, 2018-Ohio-363, ¶
14.
{¶ 26} In the present case, Kremer was originally indicted and released on EMHA
-6-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
pending trial. However, the day before he was scheduled to appear for a negotiated plea
hearing, Kremer removed his EMHA device and was later located at the Baymont Inn selling
drugs, which led to the new charges. Based on these facts, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Kremer's bail and ordering that he be held in custody until trial.
{¶ 27} Kremer next argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to
suppress statements made while "illegally detained." However, as noted above, Kremer was
not illegally detained. Furthermore, Kremer argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to
move to suppress statements made on the telephone while in jail that ultimately resulted in
the extortion offense. Contrary to Kremer's argument otherwise, counsel was not deficient in
this regard as any motion would have been meritless. State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1,
2004-Ohio-6087, ¶ 117 ("counsel is not deficient for failing to raise a meritless issue"). See,
e.g., State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122, 2009-Ohio-6179, ¶ 122 (jailhouse conversations
admissible in evidence); State v. Harper, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1310, 2017-Ohio-1395, ¶
42-46. Kremer's fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 28} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 29} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MERGE, AND TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO
RAISE AND ARGUE THAT ALLIED OFFENSES MUST MERGE UNDER R.C. 2921.45.
{¶ 30} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 31} THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SENTENCE.
{¶ 32} We will address Kremer's third and fifth assignments of error together. In his
third assignment of error, Kremer argues his convictions for trafficking in drugs and
possession of drugs in counts one through six in Case No. 16CR32152 are allied offenses of
similar import that should merge for purposes of sentencing. In his fifth assignment of error,
Kremer argues the record does not support the 13-year sentence imposed by the trial court.
{¶ 33} Pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, Ohio's allied-offenses statute, the imposition of
-7-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct is prohibited. State v. Rodriguez, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2015-02-024, 2016-Ohio-452, ¶ 23. If any of the following occurs, the
defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses: "(1) the offenses are
dissimilar in import or significance – in other words, each offense caused separate,
identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, or (3) the offenses were
committed with separate animus or motivation." State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-
Ohio-995, ¶ 25. Two or more offenses of dissimilar import exist "when the defendant's
conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that results from each
offense is separate and identifiable." Id. at ¶ 23.
{¶ 34} "At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case
because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant's conduct." Id. at ¶ 26. An appellate court
applies a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court's R.C. 2941.25 merger
determination. State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 28. "The
defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to the protection provided by R.C.
2941.25 against multiple punishments for a single criminal act." State v. Lewis, 12th Dist.
Clinton No. CA2008-10-045, 2012-Ohio-885, ¶ 14; State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2012-09-194, 2013-Ohio-2637, ¶ 8.
{¶ 35} After reviewing the limited record before us, we find that we are unable to
determine whether Kremer's convictions for the possession and trafficking in LSD, DMT, and
Fluoro-AMB should have merged. At the plea hearing, the state presented the following
facts:
In reference to case number 32152, these occurred - - all but
one occurred on July 5th, 2016 at the Baymont Inn in Mason,
Warren County, Ohio, the Defendant possessed and as well had
prepared [sic] for sale three differed drugs.
Counts I and II are in reference to 0.79 grams of LSD, 39
squares. Again, bulk amount is 10.
-8-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
Counts III and Count IV is in reference to DMT, a Schedule I
controlled substance, was determined to be 0.42 grams.
Count V and Count VI was 2.99 grams of a Fluoro-AMB, a
Schedule I controlled substance. Again, each of these were - -
substances were located on or about the Defendant's person or
in his possession in a bag that belonged to him. He admitted
that these items were his and they were prepared for sale.
At the sentencing hearing, the state again stated:
That, of course, was before what happened on the night of July
5th, 2016. Before he was able to come in and plead guilty, he
slipped off his electronic monitor. He obtains drugs, whether he's
had it before or he obtained it that evening, it is unknown.
He has his girlfriend pick him up, drive him to the Baymont Inn in
Mason and they get a room and he sells drugs from that room.
He tells officers that money that was found, the money part of
the specification were the result of trafficking in drugs, and he
had a barrage of different drugs. And he was busted then, taken
into jail, his bond was revoked.
{¶ 36} Initially, we note that possession and trafficking can constitute allied offenses
of similar import, except in instances where the offenses are committed separately or where
a different animus or motivation is apparent. Rodriguez, 2016-Ohio-452 at ¶ 31; State v.
Montoya, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-02-015, 2013-Ohio-3312, ¶ 64; State v. Bennett,
5th Dist. Ashland No. 14-COA-029, 2015-Ohio-3560, ¶ 19
{¶ 37} This court addressed a similar issue in State v. Whitaker, 12th Dist. Preble No.
CA2012-10-013, 2013-Ohio-4434, where we reversed and remanded the matter to the trial
court to conduct the necessary allied offense analysis. Id. at ¶ 61. In that case, we noted
that allied offenses of similar import must be merged at sentencing. Id. at ¶ 46. "'Thus, a
trial court is prohibited from imposing individual sentences for counts that constitute allied
offenses of similar import." Id., quoting State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-
1, ¶ 26. Furthermore, "'[u]nder R.C. 2941.25, the court must determine prior to sentencing
whether the offenses were committed by the same conduct.'" Id., quoting State v. Johnson,
-9-
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, ¶ 47. "A defendant's plea to multiple counts does not
affect the court's duty to merge those allied counts at sentencing. This duty is mandatory,
not discretionary." Underwood at ¶ 26.
{¶ 38} Similarly, based on the limited information in the record, we cannot determine
whether Kremer was sentenced to allied offenses of similar import for the possession and
trafficking of LSD, DMT, and Fluoro-AMB at the Baymont Inn. A review of the indictment, bill
of particulars, and the comments made on the record do not indicate one way or another. In
addition, the trial court did not state its findings or otherwise determine whether the charges
were allied offenses of similar import. As a result, we remand this matter to the trial court to
determine whether Kremer's convictions for the possession and trafficking of LSD, DMT, and
Fluoro-AMB in counts one through six were committed separately or with a different animus
or motivation, and thus whether the offenses should merge for sentencing purposes.
Whitaker at ¶ 61. As a result, we sustain Kremer's third assignment of error.
{¶ 39} Turning to his fifth assignment of error, Kremer argues the trial court's
sentence was contrary to law. This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard
of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those
sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may
modify or vacate a sentence only if, by clear and convincing evidence, "the record does not
support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise
contrary to law." State v. Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶
7.
{¶ 40} As noted above, we must remand counts one through six in the second
indictment regarding the charges for possession and trafficking of LSD, DMT, and Fluoro-
AMB. This is in addition to count seven in the first indictment, which we must remand
- 10 -
Warren CA2017-07-115
CA2017-07-116
following our resolution of Kremer's second assignment of error. As to the remaining counts,
we find the trial court did not err in its sentencing decision, as the trial court's sentence was
not contrary to law and was supported by the record. The trial court stated that it considered
the purposes and principles of sentencing as required by R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.
The trial court found that Kremer was not amenable to community control, which would not
adequately punish him for his actions and a prison sentence was necessary to the purposes
and principles of sentences. Furthermore, the trial court-imposed prison sentences within the
permissible range for each offense.
{¶ 41} The trial court's decision is also well-supported by the record. The record
reveals that Kremer repeatedly sold drugs throughout the community. Within months of
leaving a treatment facility, Kremer was caught selling illegal drugs. While out on bond,
Kremer removed his EMHA device and was found selling and possessing illegal drugs out of
a hotel room at the Baymont Inn. Thereafter, while he was in jail following his latest arrest,
Kremer made a threatening phone call that led to additional extortion charges.
{¶ 42} Based on review of the record, we find the trial court's sentencing decision on
the remaining counts was not contrary to law and was supported by the record. Kremer's fifth
assignment of error as it relates to the undisturbed counts is overruled.
{¶ 43} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further
proceedings as outlined above.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
- 11 -