State v. Yanni , 2020 Ohio 1352 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Yanni, 2020-Ohio-1352.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
MICHEL E. YANNI, : Case No. CT2019-0050
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2018-0702
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 6, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
D. MICHAEL HADDOX SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY
Prosecuting Attorney DONALD L. REGENSBURGER
Muskingum County, Ohio COLIN E. PETERS
ASHTON C. GAITANOS
By: TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON Samuel H. Shamansky Co., L.P.A
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 523 South Third Street
Muskingum County, Ohio Columbus, Ohio 43215
27 North Fifth St. P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Michel Yanni appeals his conviction and sentence
from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of
Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On November 8, 2018, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted
appellant on one count of trafficking in drugs (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1), a felony of the first degree, and one count of permitting drug abuse in
violation of R.C. 2925.13(A), a felony of the fifth degree. The indictment also contained
a major drug offender specification. At his arraignment on November 14, 2018, appellant
entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.
{¶3} Subsequently, a jury trial commenced on April 4, 2019. The following
testimony was adduced at trial.
{¶4} Detective Matt Wilhite of the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office testified
that he was assigned to the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force. Wilhite testified
that a confidential informant (C.I.) gave him information about two targets that he “could
assist with during the investigation, and could buy pound quantities of methamphetamine
and possibly kilo quantities of cocaine.” Trial Transcript at 69. One of the targets was
appellant. He testified that the C.I. informed law enforcement that he could arrange to
purchase eight to ten pounds of methamphetamine from appellant in Muskingum County.
{¶5} On October 30, 2018, law enforcement and the C.I. arranged for a
controlled buy of narcotics from appellant. The C.I. was wired and provided with
$4,500.00 in prerecorded cash. The C.I. met appellant in the Dollar General parking lot in
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 3
Gratiot, Ohio. There was testimony that the C.I. pulled in the parking spot next to appellant
and got into the front seat of appellant’s vehicle. After a conversation about money, the
C.I. asked appellant “where it’s at” and appellant indicated that it was in the trunk. Trial
Transcript at 92. The C.I. then got into the trunk for a short period of time, shut the trunk
and then walked back over to appellant’s vehicle and said goodbye. The C.I. then got
back into his own vehicle. Wilhite testified that he observed that the C.I. had a large
white object in his hand.
{¶6} Appellant then proceeded west on State Route 40. Wilhite testified that he
made contact with the C.I. and made sure that the transaction had been completed and
that he advised other detectives that appellant was heading west on State Route 40. He
testified that he recovered the drugs from the C.I.’s vehicle in a plastic Wal-Mart bag. Law
enforcement initiated a traffic stop of appellant’s vehicle and located the $4,500.00 in buy
money in appellant’s vehicle. An undercover video of the controlled buy was played at
trial for the jury.
{¶7} After appellant was placed under arrest, DEA agents conducted a search
of his Columbus residence. Vacuum sealed bags, which are used to package drugs, pay-
owe sheets, which are ledgers used to keep track of money someone would owe versus
the amount of drugs sold, digital scales and three cell phones were located. Detective
Wilhite testified that these items were commonly used by drug dealers to keep track of
drug sales.
{¶8} Appellant testified at trial in his own defense. He testified that he began to
sell marijuana due to his financial issues and testified that the items recovered from the
search of his Columbus residence, including ledgers, were from his marijuana selling
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 4
business. He denied ever dealing methamphetamine. Appellant testified that he was in
business with the C.I. and that he would front the C.I. marijuana and the C.I. would then
repay him as it was sold.
{¶9} On cross-examination, appellant admitted to dealing drugs for a long time.
The following testimony was then elicited on cross-examination:
{¶10} Q: At least since you got out of prison on the bank fraud?
{¶11} A: Yes.
{¶12} Q: You want these people to believe you’re just a weed dealer; right?
{¶13} A: Absolutely, because it’s the truth.
{¶14} Q: Okay. Now, in 2016, you got caught in Columbus with 100 pounds of
weed; right?
{¶15} A: Yes, I did.
{¶16} Q: And you were a fugitive since then?
{¶17} A: Yes, yes. I have –
{¶18} Q: Now, was that good weed, or was that ditch weed?
{¶19} MR. SHAMANSKY: Object; relevancy, Your Honor.
{¶20} THE COURT: Overruled. It’s cross-examination.
{¶21} Q: Was it good weed, or was it just - -
{¶22} A: The hundred pounds that I was caught with was what you call a middle-
grade weed. It’s between - -
{¶23} MR. SHAMANSKY: Your Honor, again, I’m just going to object. He has a
Fifth Amendment right. That case is pending. And I’m just going to put on the record - -
{¶24} THE COURT: I had no idea this case was pending.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 5
{¶25} MR. SHAMANSKY: Oh. Well, that was part of the question. But it is
pending, he does have a Fifth Amendment right. I still don’t see the relevancy of that
indictment to this case. But just want to make the record clear.
{¶26} THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
{¶27} Q: You said it was mid-grade weed?
{¶28} A: Yes.
{¶29} Q: So, generally, you spoke about this high-grade weed being worth $3,000
a pound.
{¶30} A: Yes.
{¶31} Q: So if it was high-grade weed, that would be $300,000 worth of weed. At
the border, directly from cartel, brick-packed, Mexican ditch weed is $300 a pound; right?
{¶32} A: No.
{¶33} Q: I mean, that’s - - that’s pound for the cheapest dirt weed you can get,
from the best price you can get.
{¶34} A: Well, unfortunately, I don’t know about the dirt weed because I don’t deal
with the dirt weed. As far as marijuana, I deal with mid grade up to high grade and that’s
it.
{¶35} Q: Okay. So you get caught with, what, $100,000 worth of weed?
{¶36} A: Yes. Approximately.
{¶37} Trial Transcript at 360-362.
{¶38} At the conclusion of the evidence, appellee dismissed the permitting drug
abuse charge. During closing argument, appellee stated, in relevant part, that “[i]n this
case, [appellant] knew he was selling meth. It was his profession. Sells drugs, sells meth,
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 6
sells weed. Does this every day.” Trial Transcript at 396-397. The prosecutor further
argued as follows:
{¶39} You don’t get at this level of the game without being very smart, okay. And
while some people think, oh, you know, somebody’s just dealing a little weed. When you
are dealing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in weed - - this is not like medical
marijuana. This is, I am a drug dealer. This is my profession. Whatever commodity,
drug dealing is the profession at that level.
{¶40} Trial Transcript at 406.
{¶41} At the conclusion of the evidence and the end of deliberations, the jury, on
April 5, 2019, found appellant guilty of trafficking in drugs (methamphetamine) and the
major drug offender specification. As memorialized in an Entry filed on May 9, 2019,
appellant was sentenced to eleven (11) years in prison and fined $20,000.00.
{¶42} Appellant now raises the following assignments of err on appeal:
{¶43} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO ELICIT
TESTIMONY FROM APPELLANT REGARDING AN UNRELATED PENDING CRIMINAL
INDICTMENT IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S
RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITE STATED CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.”
{¶44} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION
OF UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL AND IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE
OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE AND APPELLANT’S RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 7
{¶45} “III. THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REGARDING APPELLANT’S
PENDING CRIMINAL INDICTMENT IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CONSTITUTED
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION.”
I, II
{¶46} Appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred in
allowing testimony about appellant’s unrelated criminal indictment in Franklin County. In
his second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred by permitting
appellee to inquire into such indictment.
{¶47} Appellant, as is stated above, testified at trial in his own defense. Appellant
testified that he became involved in drug dealing after he was released from incarceration
after being convicted of bank fraud. He testified that he began dealing marijuana due to
financial problems and that he started out small, but it did not take long for him to sell
larger quantities. Appellant also admitted that the items recovered from his residence
were accounts of his marijuana business. Appellant testified that the ledger taken by law
enforcement was for a brand called “Blue Dream” which was a high-grade marijuana.
Trial Transcript at 330. Appellant, when asked, denied ever dealing methamphetamines
and testified that he and the C.I. started engaging in marijuana trafficking together and
were partners. According to appellant, he would front the C.I. the marijuana and the C.I.
would repay appellant as he sold the same.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 8
{¶48} Appellant stated that days before his arrest, he supplied the C.I. with six
pounds of high grade marijuana worth $3,000.00 a pound, for a total of $18,000.00 as is
stated above, the following is an excerpt from appellant’s trial testimony:
{¶49} A: When I receive my product they’re always, always going to be in a bag
that’s placed in another bag, both bags are sealed; the first bag being sealed, and the
second bag being sealed. To open that bag, I have to cut open the top of the bag to get
to the original bag. And as you can see on this particular one - -
{¶50} Q: Which one, sir?
{¶51} A: This one with the writing on it. There’s letter on here, SF OG. OG is a
brand of high-grade marijuana. SF is a - - it’s almost like - - like you have Land Rover
and then Range Rover, the make and the model. The make - - or the - - yeah, the make
is the OG, the model is the SF. And this is where - - this is - -
{¶52} Q: So that’s - -
{¶53} A: - - exactly what that is.
{¶54} Q: - - that’s a marijuana designation; correct?
{¶55} A: Yes. Yes.
{¶56} Q: Do these have anything to do with crystal methamphetamine?
{¶57} A: Absolutely not.
{¶58} Trial Transcript at 335.
{¶59} After appellant testified, the following testimony was elicited on cross-
examination:
{¶60} Q: So you’ve been dealing drugs for a long time?
{¶61} A: Yes.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 9
{¶62} Q: At least since you got out of prison on the bank fraud?
{¶63} A: Yes.
{¶64} Q: You want these people to believe you’re just a weed dealer; right?
{¶65} A: Absolutely, because it’s the truth.
{¶66} Q: Okay. Now, in 2016, you got caught in Columbus with 100 pounds of
weed; right?
{¶67} A: Yes, I did.
{¶68} Q: And you were a fugitive since then?
{¶69} A: Yes, yes. I have –
{¶70} Q: Now, was that good weed, or was that ditch weed?
{¶71} MR. SHAMANSKY: Object; relevancy, Your Honor.
{¶72} THE COURT: Overruled. It’s cross-examination.
{¶73} Q: Was it good weed, or was it just - -
{¶74} A: The hundred pounds that I was caught with was what you call a middle-
grade weed. It’s between - -
{¶75} MR. SHAMANSKY: Your Honor, again, I’m just going to object. He has a
Fifth Amendment right. That case is pending. And I’m just going to put on the record - -
{¶76} THE COURT: I had no idea this case was pending.
{¶77} MR. SHAMANSKY: Oh. Well, that was part of the question. But it is
pending, he does have a Fifth Amendment right. I still don’t see the relevancy of that
indictment to this case. But just want to make the record clear.
{¶78} THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
{¶79} Q: You said it was mid-grade weed?
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 10
{¶80} A: Yes.
{¶81} Q: So, generally, you spoke about this high-grade weed being worth $3,000
a pound.
{¶82} A: Yes.
{¶83} Q: So if it was high-grade weed, that would be $300,000 worth of weed. At
the border, directly from cartel, brick-packed, Mexican ditch weed is $300 a pound; right?
{¶84} A: No.
{¶85} Q: I mean, that’s - - that’s pound for the cheapest dirt weed you can get,
from the best price you can get.
{¶86} A: Well, unfortunately, I don’t know about the dirt weed because I don’t deal
with the dirt weed. As far as marijuana, I deal with mid grade up to high grade and that’s
it.
{¶87} Q: Okay. So you get caught with, what, $100,000 worth of weed?
{¶88} A: Yes. Approximately.
{¶89} Trial Transcript at 360-362.
{¶90} Appellant now contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to
elicit testimony on cross-examination from appellant regarding his unrelated pending
criminal indictment in Franklin County, Ohio. We note that appellant’s counsel objected
to such questioning, arguing that it was irrelevant and that appellant had a Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination.
{¶91} We note, however, that trial counsel never instructed appellant not to
answer and that appellant never asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination. Moreover, appellant, via his own testimony that he was a small time drug
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 11
dealer, opened the door to questioning about his drug trafficking. As noted by appellee,
appellant “cannot voluntarily testify in great detail on direct examination about marijuana
trafficking and then attempt to limit the State’s questioning as to the exact same matter.”
Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, that it was error to allow such evidence, we cannot
say that appellant was prejudiced in any manner based on the evidence regarding the
buy made by the C.I. and that fact that appellant admitted being a drug dealer. There was
overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt and any error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
{¶92} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are, therefore, overruled.
III
{¶93} Appellant, in his third assignment of error, argues that argues that appellee,
during closing arguments, engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.
{¶94} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the prosecutor's remarks
and comments were improper and if so, whether those remarks and comments
prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the accused. State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d
160, 166, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1017, 111 S.Ct. 591, 112 L.Ed.2d
596 (1990). In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we must review the
complained-of conduct in the context of the entire trial. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S.
168, 184, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Prosecutorial misconduct will not
provide a basis for reversal unless the misconduct can be said to have deprived appellant
of a fair trial based on the entire record. Lott, supra, 51 Ohio St.3d at 166, 555 N.E.2d
293.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 12
{¶95} Appellant, in the case sub judice, specifically argues that the prosecutor
engaged in misconduct by eliciting testimony from appellant regarding his pending
criminal indictment in Franklin County. Appellant notes that the prosecutor argued during
closing arguments that “[i]n this case, [Appellant] knew he was selling meth. It was his
profession, Sells drugs, sells meth, sell weed. Does this every day.” Transcript at 396-
397. Appellant also notes that later the prosecutor stated “[w]hen you are dealing in
hundreds of dollars in weed- this is not like medical marijuana. This is I am a drug dealer.
This is my profession. Whatever commodity, drug dealing is the profession at that level.”
Transcript at 406. According to appellant, these actions constituted prosecutorial
misconduct.
{¶96} We note that appellant’s counsel did not object to the above statements
made during closing arguments, thereby waiving all but plain error.
{¶97} The Ohio Supreme Court has recently clarified the standard of review for
plain error:
Crim.R. 52(B) affords appellate courts discretion to correct “[p]lain
errors or defects affecting substantial rights” notwithstanding an accused's
failure to meet his obligation to bring those errors to the attention of the trial
court. However, the accused bears the burden to demonstrate plain error
on the record, State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014–Ohio–4034,
19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal
rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious' defect in the trial proceedings,” State v.
Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 13
Even if the error is obvious, it must have affected substantial rights,
and “[w]e have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial
court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” Id. We recently
clarified in State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015–Ohio–2459, 38
N.E.3d 860, that the accused is “required to demonstrate a reasonable
probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential
standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis
sic.) Id. at ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74,
81–83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).
If the accused shows that the trial court committed plain error
affecting the outcome of the proceeding, an appellate court is not required
to correct it; we have “admonish[ed] courts to notice plain error ‘with the
utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a
manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Barnes at 27, 759
N.E.2d 1240, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804(1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.
State v. Thomas, 152 Ohio St.3d 15, 92 N.E.3d 821, 2017–Ohio–8011, ¶¶ 32–34.
{¶98} We concur with appellee that even if such statements were improper, they
were not so prejudicial as to deprive appellant of a fair trial and did not constitute plain
error. There was overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting appellant’s
conviction. At trial appellant testified that he was a drug dealer, he was actually caught
delivering narcotics to a CI and had the pre-recorded drug funds when he was arrested.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0050 14
Because there was overwhelming evidence presented at trial against appellant, we
cannot say that appellant was deprived of a fair trial.
{¶99} Appellant’s third assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶100} Accordingly, the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.