State v. Blassingame ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         [Cite as State v. Blassingame, 
    2021-Ohio-426
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
    STATE OF OHIO,                                   :       APPEAL NO. C-190555
    TRIAL NO. 19CRB-9001
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                            :
    O P I N I O N.
    vs.                                            :
    DERRICK D. BLASSINGAME,                          :
    Defendant-Appellant.                           :
    Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
    Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
    Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 17, 2021
    Andrew W. Garth, Interim City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting
    Attorney, and Meagan D. Woodall, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-
    Appellee,
    Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
    {¶1}    Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Derrick D. Blassingame
    was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(4), a minor
    misdemeanor, and ordered to pay a fine of $100. In his appeal, Blassingame argues
    that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance and contests the
    sufficiency and weight of the evidence underlying his conviction. For the following
    reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    Procedural History
    {¶2}    On April 14, 2019, Blassingame was arrested and charged with failing
    to provide identifying information in violation of R.C. 2921.29 (“Charge A”) and
    interfering or impeding pedestrian or vehicular traffic on a public right-of-way in
    violation of Cincinnati Municipal Code 910-13 (“Charge B”).           The next day
    Blassingame was assigned a public defender. A month later, Blassingame appeared
    at his guilty-plea hearing with a different public defender. After the guilty-plea
    hearing but before he was sentenced, Blassingame asked to withdraw his guilty plea
    and requested new counsel be appointed because he was unhappy with his current
    attorney’s performance. The trial court continued the case and agreed to appoint
    new counsel.
    {¶3}    On June 5, 2019, Blassingame’s newly-appointed counsel requested a
    continuance to prepare and obtain discovery, which the trial court granted. One
    month later, Blassingame’s counsel asked for another continuance stating, “[W]e are
    getting discovery and wanted to check to see if there are any body cams or videos of
    this incident, and then we should be prepared to go forward.” The trial court granted
    the continuance.
    2
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    {¶4}   On July 31, 2019, Blassingame moved for discovery from the
    prosecution and specifically requested the arresting officer’s body-camera video.
    Although the motion was filed at the end of July, the certificate of service indicates it
    was delivered to the prosecution on July 19, 2019.
    {¶5}   On August 14, 2019, Blassingame requested his fourth continuance
    because he was still waiting for certain discovery, namely the “911 call and CAD.”
    {¶6}   On August 21, 2019, the state responded to Blassingame’s request for
    discovery and indicated that the body-camera video was “beyond the retention
    period.”
    {¶7}   On September 25, 2019, Blassingame requested his fifth continuance
    to hire a private attorney. Blassingame told the trial court that he was unhappy with
    his public defender because he had not prepared a defense and instead had relayed a
    plea offer to him and advised him to take it. He then explained that he needed more
    time to obtain discovery, specifically the body-camera video, arguing that the
    prosecution was required to provide it to him. The trial court explained that the
    public defender was required to relay all plea offers to him and that simply because
    Blassingame did not like his trial counsel’s advice, did not mean it was not good
    advice. The trial court then denied Blassingame’s motion for a continuance because
    (1) Blassingame had the past five months to hire a private attorney and had not done
    so; (2) since his arrest more than two attorneys had been appointed to represent
    him; and (3) the court had previously continued the case four times at the
    defendant’s request.
    {¶8}   After the court denied Blassingame’s request for a continuance, the
    prosecution dismissed Charge A and reduced Charge B to disorderly conduct in
    violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(4). The case proceeded to a bench trial. Although he
    3
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    was no longer eligible for appointed counsel because the charge had been reduced to
    a minor misdemeanor, see State v. Wheeler, 
    2016-Ohio-2964
    , 
    65 N.E.3d 182
     (2d
    Dist.) (a defendant has no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel when a
    criminal prosecution carries no possibility of incarceration), the trial court permitted
    the public defender to remain to assist Blassingame as he represented himself.
    Bench Trial
    {¶9}   At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of two police officers
    and Kim Wright, a volunteer at Planet Dance Studio.
    {¶10} Wright testified that on April 14, 2019, she was volunteering at Planet
    Dance Studio, which is located at the corner of Gilbert Avenue and Sinton Avenue in
    the city of Cincinnati. She explained that the sidewalk was adjacent to the studio and
    curved around the front door. She testified that she had noticed articles of clothing
    flying around outside and observed Blassingame trying to catch them. She went
    outside and asked him if he was “okay.” He responded that he was fine, and she
    went back inside the dance studio. After speaking with parents who had entered the
    studio, she walked back outside and observed Blassingame now lying on the
    sidewalk, using the clothes as a pillow. She testified that she asked him to move,
    explaining that parents and children would be coming in and out of the studio, but
    Blassingame refused, insisting that “children should see the realities of
    homelessness.” Wright testified that she observed parents moving their vehicles past
    the designated drop-off spot so that the children exiting from the vehicles would not
    have to walk over Blassingame. Wright also observed a young dance student having
    to step off the curb and into the street to avoid stepping on Blassingame. Finally,
    Wright testified that she called the owners of the dance studio, who advised her to
    call 911.
    4
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    {¶11} Police Officer Elizabeth McNay was one of the officers responding to
    the scene, and testified that upon arriving, she observed Blassingame lying “catty-
    corner across the sidewalk” in front of the dance studio. She testified that she saw a
    child, around 7 years old, having to step off the curb, into the street, and walk around
    a stop sign to avoid Blassingame when exiting from the dance studio. When Officer
    McNay approached Blassingame, he appeared to be sleeping. She testified that she
    identified herself and explained that he could not sleep on the sidewalk because it
    was interfering with pedestrians trying to enter and exit from the studio. Officer
    McNay testified that she asked Blassingame to move, but he told her that children
    should see “the realities of homelessness.” He stated that he had been living in his
    car, but refused to reveal its location. On cross-examination, Officer McNay testified
    that the Cincinnati police department retains body-camera videos for 90 days from
    the date of arrest.
    {¶12} Police Officer William Keuper also testified that when responding to
    the scene, he had observed Blassingame lying across the sidewalk with a pillow of
    clothes under his head.
    {¶13} Blassingame testified in his defense. He admitted that the sidewalk
    was a public right-of-way, but he testified that he had been sitting on a pillow of
    clothes crossed-legged and not lying on the sidewalk. He testified that he had been
    waiting for a friend to come pick him up. He also testified that he did not recall
    telling Wright or the officers that he thought children should see “the realities of
    homelessness,” when they had asked him to move. He testified that he saw no
    children enter or exit from the dance studio.
    5
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    {¶14} At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found Blassingame
    guilty. The court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses were consistent in their
    testimony and found them to be credible.
    {¶15} Blassingame now appeals, bringing forth two assignments of error.
    Motion to Continue
    {¶16} In his first assignment, Blassingame argues that the trial court erred
    by refusing to grant him a continuance to hire a private attorney so that he may
    obtain further discovery.
    {¶17} We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for a continuance for an
    abuse of discretion. State v. Unger, 
    67 Ohio St.2d 65
    , 67, 
    423 N.E.2d 1078
     (1981).
    In Unger, the Supreme Court noted that in deciding whether to continue a
    proceeding, a trial court weighs any potential prejudice to the defendant against
    concerns such as the court’s right to control its own docket and the public’s interest
    in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice.       
    Id.
       More specifically, when
    evaluating a motion for a continuance, the court should consider whether other
    continuances have been requested and received; the inconvenience to litigants,
    witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether the requested delay is for
    legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the
    defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the request for a
    continuance; and any other relevant factors. Id. at 67-68.
    {¶18} Here, the trial court noted that Blassingame had previously been
    appointed a different attorney at his request and had already received four
    continuances. Moreover, although Blassingame requested a continuance to obtain
    additional discovery, including the officer’s body-camera video, granting a further
    continuance would not achieve Blassingame’s stated goal. All discovery available
    6
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    had been delivered by the prosecution on August 31, 2019.            Unfortunately, the
    officer’s body-camera video had not been timely requested. Even if we consider the
    earlier date of July 19, 2019—the date that Blassingame’s attorney served the
    prosecution with the request for discovery—that date is beyond the 90-day retention
    period.    Weighing any prejudice against Blassingame in the denial of the
    continuance, with the trial court’s right to control its docket, we cannot say that the
    trial court abused its discretion. The first assignment of error is overruled.
    Sufficiency and Weight
    {¶19} In his second assignment of error, Blassingame contests the sufficiency
    and weight of the evidence underlying his conviction. We review challenges to the
    sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    state and determining “whether a rational trier of fact could have found all the
    essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Barnthouse, 1st
    Dist. Hamilton No. C-180286, 
    2019-Ohio-5209
    , ¶ 6.           On the other hand, when
    reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this court must review the entire
    record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of
    the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the
    trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in
    finding the defendant guilty. State v. Thompkins, 
    78 Ohio St.3d 380
    , 386-387, 
    678 N.E.2d 541
     (1997).
    {¶20} R.C. 2917.11(A)(4) provides, “[n]o person shall recklessly cause
    inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: * * *
    (4) [h]indering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road,
    highway, or right-of-way * * * so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any
    act that serves no lawful or reasonable purpose of the offender.”
    7
    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    {¶21} Here, the state proved each element of disorderly conduct beyond a
    reasonable doubt. First, Blassingame admits that he was on the sidewalk in front of
    Planet Dance in Cincinnati. Second, the state showed that he had acted recklessly
    when he refused to move after being asked to do so twice. Third, the testimony of
    Wright and Officer McNay, who each observed a child having to step off the curb and
    into the street to avoid Blassingame, demonstrated his interference with pedestrian
    traffic.
    {¶22} With respect to the weight of the evidence, both officers as well as
    Wright testified that they had observed Blassingame lying across the sidewalk in
    front of the dance studio and not merely sitting cross-legged as he had claimed.
    Further, two of the witnesses observed children having to walk into the street to
    avoid stepping on Blassingame. In light of that testimony and the trial court’s
    finding that the prosecution witnesses’ testimony was credible, we cannot say that
    the court created a manifest miscarriage of justice by finding Blassingame guilty of
    disorderly conduct.
    {¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the
    trial court is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    MYERS and BERGERON, JJ., concur.
    Please note:
    The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-190555

Judges: Zayas

Filed Date: 2/17/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021