[Cite as State v. Bolding, 2020-Ohio-5114.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HURON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-19-002
Appellee Trial Court No. CRI 2018-0232
v.
Stacy M. Bolding DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 30, 2020
*****
James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa A. Angst, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Emil G. Gravelle III, for appellant.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from an October 25, 2018 judgment of the Huron County
Court of Common Pleas, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss. Appellant’s motion to
dismiss was prefaced upon claims that the Huron County conviction underlying this
appeal constituted double jeopardy in connection to an Erie County conviction against appellant. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial
court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Stacy Bolding, sets forth the following two assignments of error:
1. The Trial Court erred when it denied [appellant’s] Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Double Jeopardy clauses in the [U.S.] Constitution
and [] the Ohio Constitution.
2. The Trial Court erred when it denied [appellant’s] Motion to
Dismiss because Huron County did not have a significant nexus to charge
Appellant.
{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. This case
concerns two separate and distinct drug offenses committed by appellant on separate
dates, involving separate evidence, and occurring in short succession to one another.
{¶ 4} Huron County prosecuted appellant for drug offenses committed on
February 7, 2018, while Erie County prosecuted appellant for drug offenses committed
on February 12, 2018.
{¶ 5} The inception of all cases was in Huron County. On February 6, 2018, a
known confidential informant (“CI”) entered the Norwalk Police Department, located in
Huron County, and conveyed that an unlawful drug purchase of methamphetamines could
be facilitated the following day from a man living in Milan, located in Erie County. The
Milan Police Department was notified of the matter via a courtesy call, but did not
participate in the law enforcement operation.
2. {¶ 6} On February 7, 2018, the CI, working in coordination with the Norwalk
Police Department, successfully completed a controlled buy in Milan of approximately
five grams of methamphetamine.
{¶ 7} The February 7, 2018 drug transaction was conducted and completed with
the CI by appellant, the Milan man’s live-in girlfriend. The February 7, 2018 offenses,
arising from the Norwalk Police Department CI controlled buy from appellant, were
subsequently prosecuted in Huron County.
{¶ 8} Based upon the February 7, 2018 drug transaction at appellant’s residence,
on February 12, 2018, the Norwalk and Milan Police Departments, in conjunction with
the Erie County Sheriff’s Department, executed a search warrant at appellant’s Milan
residence.
{¶ 9} The evidence of drug offenses discovered during the February 12, 2018
search of appellant’s Milan residence later served as the basis for separate charges against
appellant in Erie County.
{¶ 10} On March 8, 2018, appellant was charged in the Norwalk Municipal Court
for the drug offenses arising from the February 7, 2018 controlled buy of
methamphetamines from appellant. On March 15, 2018, the charges were bound over to
the Huron County Court of Common Pleas for felony prosecution.
{¶ 11} On April 11, 2018, over a month after the Huron County cases were filed,
appellant was indicted in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on one count of
aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, a felony of the third degree,
3. and one count of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a felony of
the third degree, stemming from the February 12, 2018 search of appellant’s residence.
{¶ 12} On May 22, 2018, nearly three months after the Huron County cases were
filed, appellant pled guilty in the Erie County cases to one amended count of attempted
aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11 and 2923.02, as reduced to a
felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 13} In exchange, the companion felony offense was dismissed. In addition,
appellant agreed to testify against her boyfriend, the co-defendant in the Erie County
cases. Appellant was sentenced to three years of community control.
{¶ 14} On May 25, 2018, in follow-up to the March 15, 2018 bind-over of the
Norwalk Municipal Court charges, appellant was indicted in the Huron County Court of
Common Pleas on one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C.
2925.03, a felony of the third degree.
{¶ 15} On September 18, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the Huron
County case underlying this appeal based upon claims of double jeopardy with the Erie
County conviction and based upon insufficient nexus claims.
{¶ 16} On October 25, 2018, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and found
the double jeopardy and nexus claims to be without merit, holding in pertinent part, “The
Court finds * * * a sufficient nexus to permit the subject offense of trafficking
methamphetamine to be filed and tried in Huron County. Further, the offenses charged
4. subsequently by Erie County were separate offenses committed on separate dates than
the charge alleged in the present matter.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 17} On November 7, 2018, given the motion to dismiss denial, appellant pled
guilty to the subject Huron County drug trafficking offense, in violation of R.C. 2925.03,
a felony of the third degree. On January 9, 2019, appellant was sentenced to a 90-day
term in the local jail, stayed pending appeal. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 18} In the first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court erred
in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss. In support, appellant asserts that the motion
should have been granted based upon double jeopardy with the Erie County conviction.
We do not concur.
{¶ 19} When a motion to dismiss determination is challenged on a double
jeopardy basis, appellate review is conducted on a de novo basis. State v. McFarland,
6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-048, 2012-Ohio-1991, ¶ 9.
{¶ 20} In principal support of the first assignment, appellant relies upon this
court’s 2012 decision in State v. McFarland, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-048, 2012-Ohio-
1991. The crux of appellant’s position is reflected in appellant’s quotation of the portion
of McFarland stating, “Prosecution in two different counties may be pursued only for
separate and distinct acts committed on different dates.” McFarland at ¶ 10.
{¶ 21} We have carefully reviewed McFarland and find that while it sets forth the
proper scope of appellate review, it is otherwise materially distinguishable from, and
inapplicable to, the instant case.
5. {¶ 22} Of greatest relevance, when the defendant in McFarland initially entered
no contest pleas to charges in Lucas County, he had no knowledge or awareness at that
time that separate prosecutions in separate venues would subsequently commence, such
that double jeopardy considerations became implicated.
{¶ 23} Conversely, in the instant matter, the record clearly reflects that when
appellant entered into the Erie County plea agreement, appellant was already aware that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Bolding, 2020-Ohio-5114.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HURON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-19-002
Appellee Trial Court No. CRI 2018-0232
v.
Stacy M. Bolding DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 30, 2020
*****
James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa A. Angst, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Emil G. Gravelle III, for appellant.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from an October 25, 2018 judgment of the Huron County
Court of Common Pleas, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss. Appellant’s motion to
dismiss was prefaced upon claims that the Huron County conviction underlying this
appeal constituted double jeopardy in connection to an Erie County conviction against appellant. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial
court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Stacy Bolding, sets forth the following two assignments of error:
1. The Trial Court erred when it denied [appellant’s] Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Double Jeopardy clauses in the [U.S.] Constitution
and [] the Ohio Constitution.
2. The Trial Court erred when it denied [appellant’s] Motion to
Dismiss because Huron County did not have a significant nexus to charge
Appellant.
{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. This case
concerns two separate and distinct drug offenses committed by appellant on separate
dates, involving separate evidence, and occurring in short succession to one another.
{¶ 4} Huron County prosecuted appellant for drug offenses committed on
February 7, 2018, while Erie County prosecuted appellant for drug offenses committed
on February 12, 2018.
{¶ 5} The inception of all cases was in Huron County. On February 6, 2018, a
known confidential informant (“CI”) entered the Norwalk Police Department, located in
Huron County, and conveyed that an unlawful drug purchase of methamphetamines could
be facilitated the following day from a man living in Milan, located in Erie County. The
Milan Police Department was notified of the matter via a courtesy call, but did not
participate in the law enforcement operation.
2. {¶ 6} On February 7, 2018, the CI, working in coordination with the Norwalk
Police Department, successfully completed a controlled buy in Milan of approximately
five grams of methamphetamine.
{¶ 7} The February 7, 2018 drug transaction was conducted and completed with
the CI by appellant, the Milan man’s live-in girlfriend. The February 7, 2018 offenses,
arising from the Norwalk Police Department CI controlled buy from appellant, were
subsequently prosecuted in Huron County.
{¶ 8} Based upon the February 7, 2018 drug transaction at appellant’s residence,
on February 12, 2018, the Norwalk and Milan Police Departments, in conjunction with
the Erie County Sheriff’s Department, executed a search warrant at appellant’s Milan
residence.
{¶ 9} The evidence of drug offenses discovered during the February 12, 2018
search of appellant’s Milan residence later served as the basis for separate charges against
appellant in Erie County.
{¶ 10} On March 8, 2018, appellant was charged in the Norwalk Municipal Court
for the drug offenses arising from the February 7, 2018 controlled buy of
methamphetamines from appellant. On March 15, 2018, the charges were bound over to
the Huron County Court of Common Pleas for felony prosecution.
{¶ 11} On April 11, 2018, over a month after the Huron County cases were filed,
appellant was indicted in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on one count of
aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, a felony of the third degree,
3. and one count of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a felony of
the third degree, stemming from the February 12, 2018 search of appellant’s residence.
{¶ 12} On May 22, 2018, nearly three months after the Huron County cases were
filed, appellant pled guilty in the Erie County cases to one amended count of attempted
aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11 and 2923.02, as reduced to a
felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 13} In exchange, the companion felony offense was dismissed. In addition,
appellant agreed to testify against her boyfriend, the co-defendant in the Erie County
cases. Appellant was sentenced to three years of community control.
{¶ 14} On May 25, 2018, in follow-up to the March 15, 2018 bind-over of the
Norwalk Municipal Court charges, appellant was indicted in the Huron County Court of
Common Pleas on one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C.
2925.03, a felony of the third degree.
{¶ 15} On September 18, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the Huron
County case underlying this appeal based upon claims of double jeopardy with the Erie
County conviction and based upon insufficient nexus claims.
{¶ 16} On October 25, 2018, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and found
the double jeopardy and nexus claims to be without merit, holding in pertinent part, “The
Court finds * * * a sufficient nexus to permit the subject offense of trafficking
methamphetamine to be filed and tried in Huron County. Further, the offenses charged
4. subsequently by Erie County were separate offenses committed on separate dates than
the charge alleged in the present matter.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 17} On November 7, 2018, given the motion to dismiss denial, appellant pled
guilty to the subject Huron County drug trafficking offense, in violation of R.C. 2925.03,
a felony of the third degree. On January 9, 2019, appellant was sentenced to a 90-day
term in the local jail, stayed pending appeal. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 18} In the first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court erred
in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss. In support, appellant asserts that the motion
should have been granted based upon double jeopardy with the Erie County conviction.
We do not concur.
{¶ 19} When a motion to dismiss determination is challenged on a double
jeopardy basis, appellate review is conducted on a de novo basis. State v. McFarland,
6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-048, 2012-Ohio-1991, ¶ 9.
{¶ 20} In principal support of the first assignment, appellant relies upon this
court’s 2012 decision in State v. McFarland, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-048, 2012-Ohio-
1991. The crux of appellant’s position is reflected in appellant’s quotation of the portion
of McFarland stating, “Prosecution in two different counties may be pursued only for
separate and distinct acts committed on different dates.” McFarland at ¶ 10.
{¶ 21} We have carefully reviewed McFarland and find that while it sets forth the
proper scope of appellate review, it is otherwise materially distinguishable from, and
inapplicable to, the instant case.
5. {¶ 22} Of greatest relevance, when the defendant in McFarland initially entered
no contest pleas to charges in Lucas County, he had no knowledge or awareness at that
time that separate prosecutions in separate venues would subsequently commence, such
that double jeopardy considerations became implicated.
{¶ 23} Conversely, in the instant matter, the record clearly reflects that when
appellant entered into the Erie County plea agreement, appellant was already aware that
separate criminal charges were pending against her in Huron County.
{¶ 24} Appellant had been charged on March 8, 2018, in the Norwalk Municipal
Court, and bound over on March 15, 2018, to the Huron County Court of Common Pleas,
both events occurring in advance of the May 22, 2018 Erie County negotiated plea
agreement, thereby refuting appellant’s claimed lack of awareness of additional charges.
{¶ 25} In addition to the sequence of events undercutting appellant’s reliance on
McFarland, the McFarland case entailed the unlawful distribution of an electronic child
pornography online file. Such unlawful files can be transferred, downloaded, and
consumed by the original intended receiver, and then transferred to another end user for
subsequent unlawful consumption unbeknownst to the original sender.
{¶ 26} By contrast, the instant case entails separate and distinct quantities of
methamphetamines recovered on separate dates. Such batches of unlawful drugs are not
capable of being consumed by an original user, and then passed on to another user for
subsequent unlawful consumption, so as to entail a double jeopardy risk analogous to the
McFarland scenario.
6. {¶ 27} Lastly, McFarland entailed an integrated, joint law enforcement online
child pornography sting operation conducted on a collaborative basis amongst multiple
law enforcement agencies.
{¶ 28} By contrast, the February 7, 2018 police operation underlying the Huron
County conviction in the instant matter was conducted on a unilateral basis by the
Norwalk Police Department. It was not conducted on a joint basis with multiple
agencies, such as occurred in McFarland.
{¶ 29} Accordingly, we find that McFarland has multiple material distinctions
with the present case and does not direct the outcome.
{¶ 30} Further, as set forth in R.C. 2941.25(B), “Where the defendant’s conduct
* * * results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or
with a separate animus as to each * * * the defendant may be convicted of all of them.”
As set forth in detail above, such a scenario is what transpired in this case.
{¶ 31} Based upon our independent review of appellant’s double jeopardy claims,
we find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we find appellant’s first assignment of
error not well-taken.
{¶ 32} In the second assignment of error, appellant similarly maintains that the
trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was improper based upon an allegedly
insufficient nexus between the February 7, 2018 offense and Huron County. We do not
concur.
7. {¶ 33} R.C. 2901.12(H) establishes that when, “[A]s a course of criminal conduct,
[a defendant] commits offenses in different jurisdictions, the offender may be tried for all
of those offenses in any jurisdiction in which one of those offenses or any element of one
of those offenses occurred.”
{¶ 34} As applied to the instant case, the record reflects that the genesis of the
February 7, 2018 controlled buy of methamphetamines event was a known CI going into
the Norwalk Police Department in Huron County, Ohio, notifying Norwalk officers of
methamphetamine dealing occurring at appellant’s residence, and working with Norwalk
officers in Huron County to contact, arrange, and facilitate the controlled buy from
{¶ 35} The record shows that a considerable nexus existed with Huron County
such that Huron County was a proper venue pursuant to R.C. 2901.12(H).
{¶ 36} Accordingly, we find appellant’s second assignment of error not well-
taken.
{¶ 37} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Huron County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
8. State v. Bolding C.A. No. H-19-002
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.