State v. Schwab

2014 Ohio 336
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 21, 2014
Docket12CA39
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2014 Ohio 336 (State v. Schwab) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Schwab, 2014 Ohio 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Schwab, 2014-Ohio-336.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 12CA39 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY : GRANTING APPLICATION FOR TERRY SCHWAB, : RECONSIDERATION : Defendant-Appellant. : RELEASED: 01/21/14

______________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

David J. Winkelmann, Athens, Ohio, for appellant.

Keller J. Blackburn, Athens County Prosecuting Attorney, and Merry M. Saunders, Athens County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ______________________________________________________________________ Harsha, J. {¶1} The state of Ohio, seeks reconsideration of our decision in State v.

Schwab, 4th Dist. Athens No. 12CA39, 2013-Ohio-4349, which sustained appellant

Terry Schwab's first assignment of error and reversed his conviction for corrupting

another with drugs.

{¶2} Because the state’s unopposed motion calls to our attention an error in

our holding that was not fully considered when it should have been, we grant the

motion. In our decision we held that there was insufficient evidence to support

Schwab’s conviction for corrupting Tara Crego, the minor daughter of his fiancée,

because the state failed to introduce evidence that he furnished or administered

Oxycodone to Crego during the March 9 incident. Athens App. No. 12CA39 2

{¶3} However, the trial court instructed the jury that for purposes of the R.C.

2925.02(A)(4) charge, “furnished” means “provided, supplied, or gave access to.” In his

appellate brief, Schwab conceded that the trial testimony established that he “kept his

medications in a kitchen cabinet, to which anyone in the home had access.” Based on

this testimony, there was sufficient evidence to support Schwab’s conviction for R.C.

2925.02(A)(4), and that conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Therefore, we vacate that portion of our decision partially sustaining Schwab’s first

assignment and finding the second assignment of error moot. We now overrule

Schwab’s first and second assignments of error, and affirm his convictions and

sentence in their entirety.

I. FACTS

{¶4} A jury convicted Schwab of multiple offenses stemming from two separate

incidents. For the March 9, 2011 incident, the jury found him guilty of complicity to

aggravated trafficking in drugs (Oxycodone) in the vicinity of a juvenile, (2) corrupting

another with drugs (Oxycodone), and (3) complicity to trafficking in drugs (Alprazolam)

in the vicinity of a juvenile. For the April 1, 2011 incident, the jury found him guilty of (1)

corrupting another with drugs (Oxycodone), and (2) complicity to aggravated

possession of drugs (Oxycodone) in an amount equal to or in excess of five times the

bulk amount but less than 50 times the bulk amount.

{¶5} After sentencing Schwab appealed, claiming in his first assignment of

error that insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions and claiming in his

second assignment of error that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the

evidence. We sustained that portion of Schwab’s first assignment of error concerning Athens App. No. 12CA39 3

his conviction for corrupting Crego with drugs for the March 9 incident, reversed the

conviction, ruled that his second assignment of error was moot regarding this

conviction, and remanded the cause for the trial court to discharge him on that charge.

Schwab, 2013-Ohio-4349, at ¶ 35, 43. For the remainder of Schwab’s convictions, we

overruled his assignments of error and affirmed his convictions. Id.

{¶6} The state filed an application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A).

Schwab did not oppose the application.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶7} The state assigns the following error for our review:

Assignment of Error I: This Court erred when it found that there was no evidence that Appellant furnished or administered Oxycodone to Crego during the March 9 controlled drug purchase.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶8} The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in

the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious

error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at

all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been. State v. Gregory,

4th Dist. Pickaway No. 97CA33, 2998 WL 914242; State v. Wheeler, 4th Dist.

Washington No. 04CA1, 2005-Ohio-479, ¶ 7.

IV. LAW AND ANALYSIS

{¶9} The state argues in its unopposed motion for reconsideration that we

erred in finding that there was no evidence that Schwab furnished or administered

Oxycodone to Crego for the March 9 incident. In partially sustaining Schwab’s first

assignment of error for this incident, we relied on the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Athens App. No. 12CA39 4

“furnish” to find that there was insufficient evidence to support Schwab’s conviction for

corrupting another with drugs:

Black’s Law Dictionary 466 (Abridged 6th Ed.1991) defines “furnish” to mean “[t]o supply, provide, or equip, for accomplishment of a particular purpose.” For the March 9 incident, we conclude there is no evidence Schwab supplied, provided, or equipped Crego with Oxycodone for any purpose. All of the evidence indicates Crego handled the Xanax and Fidell handled the Oxycodone during the transaction with Vore. Because no evidence exists that Schwab furnished or administered Oxycodone to Crego during the March 9 incident, we find there is insufficient evidence to support that conviction for corrupting another with drugs and reverse it.

Schwab at ¶ 34.

{¶10} Nevertheless, as the state now brings to our attention on reconsideration,

through counsel Schwab stipulated to the trial court’s jury instructions, which defined

“furnished” with the language used in Ohio Jury Instructions at CR Section 525.02(9), as

meaning “provided, supplied, or gave access to.” And in his appellate brief, Schwab

conceded that Crego’s trial testimony established that he “kept his medications in a

kitchen cabinet, to which anyone in the home had access.” (Emphasis added.) See

also State v. Hardison, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23050, 2007-Ohio-366, ¶ 28-31 (conviction

for corrupting another with drugs under R.C. 2925.04(A)(4) not against the manifest

weight of the evidence because testimony supported finding that defendant gave

access to drugs to minor by hiding them in the minor’s dresser drawer).

{¶11} Under these unique circumstances—(1) Schwab’s waiver of any error in

the trial court’s jury instructions on this point, see State v. Alexander, 4th Dist. Adams

No. 12CA945, 2013-Ohio-1913, ¶ 27 (failure to object to jury instructions at trial waives

all but plain error on appeal), (2) his failure to claim plain error regarding this issue on

appeal, (3) his admission that Schwab, in effect, furnished the Oxycodone to Crego on Athens App. No. 12CA39 5

March 9 by giving her access it, (4) the state’s raising of an issue on reconsideration

that we did not fully consider when we issued our prior decision, and (5) Schwab’s

failure to oppose the state’s application for reconsideration—the state has established

that we erred in concluding that no evidence existed to support his conviction for

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Pasterchik
2023 Ohio 4252 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Hollingshead
2023 Ohio 1714 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Haynes
2020 Ohio 1049 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Jeffery
2019 Ohio 4612 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Leffel
2019 Ohio 1840 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Patterson
2015 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ohio 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schwab-ohioctapp-2014.