[Cite as State v. Fulker, 2024-Ohio-388.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-27 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT FULKER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 22-CR-0047
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 5, 2024
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee Case No. 3-23-27
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert A. Fulker (“Fulker”) appeals the judgment
of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that his convictions are
against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On February 11, 2022, Lieutenant Brent Cottrill (“Lt. Cottrill”) of the
Crawford County Sherriff’s Office initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that had a loud
exhaust. Fulker was a passenger in the vehicle. During this stop, Lt. Cottrill
discovered that Fulker had an outstanding arrest warrant and directed Fulker to exit
the vehicle. He then performed a protective search of Fulker’s person but did not
locate any weapons. A cigarette pack that contained a small amount of marijuana
was discovered in Fulker’s back pocket.
{¶3} After Fulker was arrested, Lieutenant Craig Moser (“Lt. Moser”)
arrived at the scene of the traffic stop. Lt. Cottrill asked Fulker if he had any
contraband in his possession and informed him that any illegal items taken into the
jail could provide grounds for additional criminal charges. Fulker was then placed
in Lt. Moser’s police cruiser and transported to jail. A corrections officer, Joseph
Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), took custody of Fulker at the jail to process his arrest and
conduct a more thorough search of his person.
-2- Case No. 3-23-27
{¶4} During the search at the jail, Fulker took off his hoodie. At this time, a
small baggie containing a crystalline substance fell to the floor. Lightfoot later
reviewed the security camera footage of the search and stated that the baggie
appeared to have fallen from around Fulker’s waistband at the time he was removing
his hoodie. This substance inside the baggie was later tested and found to be 0.05
grams of methamphetamine.
{¶5} On February 15, 2022, Fulker was indicted on one count of illegal
conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified governmental facility in
violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony. This charge formed the basis
of Case No. 22-CR-0047. Fulker was subsequently indicted for aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony. This
second charge formed the basis of Case No. 23-CR-0019. As these charges were
related, these cases were joined together with all filings to be received in Case No.
23-CR-0047.
{¶6} On May 18, 2023, a jury trial was held on these charges. The State
introduced video recordings of the traffic stop and the search that occurred at the
jail. Fulker testified in his defense, stating that the clothes he was wearing during
the search were not his and that he was unaware of the illegal drugs found in his
possession. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both charges against Fulker. The
trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing on May 22, 2023.
-3- Case No. 3-23-27
Assignment of Error
{¶7} Fulker filed his notice of appeal on June 21, 2023. On appeal, he raises
the following assignment of error:
Appellant’s convictions are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Fulker argues that the jurors clearly lost their way in finding him guilty because he
testified at trial that the illegal drugs that were discovered did not belong to him.
Legal Standard
{¶8} In a manifest weight analysis, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to
determine whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.”
State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 73 (3d Dist.). For this reason, an
“appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ * * *.” State v. Elliott, 2022-Ohio-3778,
199 N.E.3d 944, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
388, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, 547 (1997).
Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder ‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’”
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶
73, quoting Thompkins at 387.
-4- Case No. 3-23-27
{¶9} “A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate
discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses.” State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7.
“Only in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the
conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v.
Little, 2016-Ohio-8398, 78 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 131
Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.
{¶10} To establish a conviction for illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto
grounds of a specified government facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), the
State must prove that the defendant “knowingly convey[ed] * * * onto the grounds
of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse * * *.” In turn, a “drug of abuse” is
defined as including controlled substances. R.C. 3719.011(A). “Methamphetamine
is classified as a controlled substance.” State v. Gerhart, 9th Dist. Summit No.
24384, 2009-Ohio-4165, ¶ 13. To establish a conviction for possession of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly
obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance.” R.C. 2925.11(A).
Legal Analysis
{¶11} On appeal, Fulker argues that the finding that he knowingly possessed
methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 2925.11(A) and the finding that he
-5- Case No. 3-23-27
knowingly conveyed methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 3719.011(A)
are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶12} At trial, Lt. Cottrill testified that he “asked Fulker if he had anything
illegal on him and explained to him * * * the consequences of taking anything illegal
inside the jail” at the time he was placed into a police cruiser. (Tr. 107-108). Fulker
was then taken to the jail where Lightfoot located the baggie of methamphetamines
on the floor next to Fulker. After Fulker denied having any knowledge of these
drugs, Lightfoot reviewed the security camera footage and concluded that the baggie
had fallen from Fulker’s waistband. On cross-examination, Lightfoot admitted that
he did not see the baggie fall from Fulker’s person and indicated that his conclusions
were based on the video footage.
{¶13} Lt. Moser testified that, after the illegal drugs were discovered, he
spoke with Fulker. During this interview, he pointed out that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Fulker, 2024-Ohio-388.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-27 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT FULKER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 22-CR-0047
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 5, 2024
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee Case No. 3-23-27
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert A. Fulker (“Fulker”) appeals the judgment
of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that his convictions are
against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On February 11, 2022, Lieutenant Brent Cottrill (“Lt. Cottrill”) of the
Crawford County Sherriff’s Office initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that had a loud
exhaust. Fulker was a passenger in the vehicle. During this stop, Lt. Cottrill
discovered that Fulker had an outstanding arrest warrant and directed Fulker to exit
the vehicle. He then performed a protective search of Fulker’s person but did not
locate any weapons. A cigarette pack that contained a small amount of marijuana
was discovered in Fulker’s back pocket.
{¶3} After Fulker was arrested, Lieutenant Craig Moser (“Lt. Moser”)
arrived at the scene of the traffic stop. Lt. Cottrill asked Fulker if he had any
contraband in his possession and informed him that any illegal items taken into the
jail could provide grounds for additional criminal charges. Fulker was then placed
in Lt. Moser’s police cruiser and transported to jail. A corrections officer, Joseph
Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), took custody of Fulker at the jail to process his arrest and
conduct a more thorough search of his person.
-2- Case No. 3-23-27
{¶4} During the search at the jail, Fulker took off his hoodie. At this time, a
small baggie containing a crystalline substance fell to the floor. Lightfoot later
reviewed the security camera footage of the search and stated that the baggie
appeared to have fallen from around Fulker’s waistband at the time he was removing
his hoodie. This substance inside the baggie was later tested and found to be 0.05
grams of methamphetamine.
{¶5} On February 15, 2022, Fulker was indicted on one count of illegal
conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified governmental facility in
violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony. This charge formed the basis
of Case No. 22-CR-0047. Fulker was subsequently indicted for aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony. This
second charge formed the basis of Case No. 23-CR-0019. As these charges were
related, these cases were joined together with all filings to be received in Case No.
23-CR-0047.
{¶6} On May 18, 2023, a jury trial was held on these charges. The State
introduced video recordings of the traffic stop and the search that occurred at the
jail. Fulker testified in his defense, stating that the clothes he was wearing during
the search were not his and that he was unaware of the illegal drugs found in his
possession. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both charges against Fulker. The
trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing on May 22, 2023.
-3- Case No. 3-23-27
Assignment of Error
{¶7} Fulker filed his notice of appeal on June 21, 2023. On appeal, he raises
the following assignment of error:
Appellant’s convictions are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Fulker argues that the jurors clearly lost their way in finding him guilty because he
testified at trial that the illegal drugs that were discovered did not belong to him.
Legal Standard
{¶8} In a manifest weight analysis, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to
determine whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.”
State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 73 (3d Dist.). For this reason, an
“appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ * * *.” State v. Elliott, 2022-Ohio-3778,
199 N.E.3d 944, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
388, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, 547 (1997).
Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder ‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’”
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶
73, quoting Thompkins at 387.
-4- Case No. 3-23-27
{¶9} “A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate
discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses.” State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7.
“Only in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the
conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v.
Little, 2016-Ohio-8398, 78 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 131
Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.
{¶10} To establish a conviction for illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto
grounds of a specified government facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), the
State must prove that the defendant “knowingly convey[ed] * * * onto the grounds
of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse * * *.” In turn, a “drug of abuse” is
defined as including controlled substances. R.C. 3719.011(A). “Methamphetamine
is classified as a controlled substance.” State v. Gerhart, 9th Dist. Summit No.
24384, 2009-Ohio-4165, ¶ 13. To establish a conviction for possession of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly
obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance.” R.C. 2925.11(A).
Legal Analysis
{¶11} On appeal, Fulker argues that the finding that he knowingly possessed
methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 2925.11(A) and the finding that he
-5- Case No. 3-23-27
knowingly conveyed methamphetamines within the meaning of R.C. 3719.011(A)
are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶12} At trial, Lt. Cottrill testified that he “asked Fulker if he had anything
illegal on him and explained to him * * * the consequences of taking anything illegal
inside the jail” at the time he was placed into a police cruiser. (Tr. 107-108). Fulker
was then taken to the jail where Lightfoot located the baggie of methamphetamines
on the floor next to Fulker. After Fulker denied having any knowledge of these
drugs, Lightfoot reviewed the security camera footage and concluded that the baggie
had fallen from Fulker’s waistband. On cross-examination, Lightfoot admitted that
he did not see the baggie fall from Fulker’s person and indicated that his conclusions
were based on the video footage.
{¶13} Lt. Moser testified that, after the illegal drugs were discovered, he
spoke with Fulker. During this interview, he pointed out that
he [Fulker] was asked if he had anything else on him because if he brings it into the jail he’d be having an additional charge. And he [Fulker] told me he didn’t know he had it and then stated that he was wearing somebody else’s clothes.
(Tr. 124). At trial, Fulker testified that he found the hoodie he was wearing in a
trailer that he purchased three weeks prior to his arrest. He also indicated that he
had not seen these methamphetamines until he was at the jail; that he did not know
about the presence of this controlled substance; and that these drugs were not his.
-6- Case No. 3-23-27
Fulker stated that he would have told the police about the baggie of
methamphetamines if he had known about them.
{¶14} During a question on cross-examination, the prosecutor noted that the
baggie appeared to fall from Fulker’s waistband in the security camera footage
while Fulker was maintaining that the baggie came from the pocket of the hoodie
he was wearing at trial. In response, Fulker stated that he believed the camera
footage shows that the baggie fell out of the pocket of his hoodie, though he admitted
that he was not sure where the baggie was before it fell. The security camera footage
was played at trial for the jurors to observe.
{¶15} To summarize, the State introduced video footage at trial in which a
baggie of methamphetamines can be seen falling out of Fulker’s clothing while he
was being searched at the jail. In response, Fulker denied having any knowledge of
these illegal drugs that were on his person. The jurors apparently found his denial
not to be credible. As the finders of fact, the jurors were “free to believe all, some,
or none” of his testimony. State v. Houdeshell, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-18-02, 2018-
Ohio-5217, ¶ 39. Having examined the record, we have found no indication that
the jury lost its way and returned verdicts that were against the manifest weight of
the evidence. The sole assignment of error is overruled.
-7- Case No. 3-23-27
Conclusion
{¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas
is affirmed.
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls
-8-