[Cite as State v. Gadison,
2021-Ohio-3966.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vsCase No. 2021CA00046
ALVIN GADISON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2020-CR-1672
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 4, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KYLE L. STONE BERNARD L. HUNT
Prosecuting Attorney 2395 McGinty Road, N.W.
Stark County, Ohio North Canton, Ohio 44720
VICKI L. DESANTIS
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Division
110 Central Plaza, South, Suite #510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Alvin Gadison appeals the judgment entered by the
Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting him of illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse
onto grounds of a specified governmental facility (R.C. 2921.36(A)(2)) and criminal
damaging (R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), (B)) and sentencing him to an aggregate term of thirty
months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On September 5, 2020, Deputy Richard Gurlea of the Stark County
Sherriff’s Department was dispatched on a criminal damaging complaint. When he
arrived on the scene, the victim showed him a glass liquor bottle on the floor of her
residence, and a hole through the glass of a nearby window. Appellant then arrived on
the scene, and admitted to throwing the bottle through the victim’s window.
{¶3} Dep. Gurlea proceeded to arrest Appellant. The deputy conducted a pat
down search, finding nothing. However, as he transported Appellant to the jail for
booking, Dep. Gurlea began to suspect not everything was found during the pat down
search. Initially, Appellant was coherent and able to answer the deputy’s questions.
However, the longer Appellant was in custody, the deputy noted Appellant began to show
signs of being under the influence.
{¶4} By the time Dep. Gurlea and Appellant arrived at the jail, Appellant was
lethargic, sluggish, and displayed slurred speech. Dep. Gurlea put Appellant in a
temporary holding cell while the deputy entered information into a computer. Appellant
fell asleep in the holding cell.
{¶5} Deputy Tristan Heath was working in the receiving area of the jail when
Appellant was brought in by Dep. Gurlea. Dep. Heath patted Appellant down, finding
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 3
nothing. Appellant was agitated and fidgety, and tried to distract the deputy during this
search. Dep. Heath described Appellant’s behavior as “deceitful.” Tr. 113.
{¶6} Appellant was then put through a body scan, designed to pick up metal
objects. After clearing the scanner, Appellant was taken to a holding cell. This cell was
checked every time an inmate leaves the cell. Appellant was processed through this cell
during the Covid-19 pandemic, and because of this, the cell was also cleaned after every
use. The cell was therefore empty when Appellant entered.
{¶7} Appellant moved behind a partition in the holding cell, where a toilet was
located. When Appellant came out from behind the partition, he handed Dep. Heath his
underwear. Two clear baggies fell out, containing a white substance. Appellant informed
the deputy the substance was crack cocaine.
{¶8} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury for conveyance of
drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified governmental facility, domestic violence, and
criminal damaging. The State filed a nolle prosequi as to the charge of domestic violence.
{¶9} The case proceeded to jury trial on the remaining charges. Appellant was
convicted of both charges. Appellant was sentenced to thirty months incarceration for
conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified governmental facility, and to
thirty days incarceration for criminal damaging, to be served concurrently.
{¶10} It is from the March 29, 2021 judgment of the trial court Appellant
prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 4
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT THE
APPELLANT’S CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL.
I.
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to inquire further concerning Dep. Gurlea’s testimony about the
changes in Appellant’s demeanor, and for failing to object to Dep. Heath’s
characterization of Appellant as “deceitful.”
{¶12} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37
Ohio St.3d 153,
524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below
an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel’s error, the result
of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668,
104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984); State v. Bradley,
42 Ohio St.3d 136,
538 N.E.2d
373 (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel’s conduct so undermined the
proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having
produced a just result.
Id.
{¶13} Dep. Gurlea testified during the course of the arrest and transportation of
Appellant to the jail, Appellant’s demeanor changed from coherent to lethargic, sluggish,
and apparently under the influence. Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to inquire further about the deputy’s observation on cross-examination. We find
Appellant has not demonstrated counsel was ineffective in this respect. Further
questioning might only have drawn further attention to the deputy’s perception Appellant
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 5
was under the influence, emphasizing to the jury Appellant possibly ingested drugs during
the encounter and carried those drugs with him into the jail. In addition, Appellant has
not demonstrated the result of the proceeding would have been different had counsel
inquired further on this issue. We find counsel was not ineffective in this respect.
{¶14} Appellant also argues counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Dep.
Heath’s description of Appellant as “deceitful.” When asked by the prosecutor to
elaborate on the term “deceitful,” Dep. Heath explained in his experience in law
enforcement and corrections, if he is patting someone down and the person tries to
distract him during this process, it is a sign the person might have something on them.
Tr. 113-114. The deputy noted Appellant talked a lot and tried to jump up on a table,
which are telltale signs Appellant might have something on him. Tr. 114. We find
Appellant has not demonstrated in the absence of the use of the word “deceitful” to
characterize his behavior, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The
evidence demonstrated the baggies of drugs fell out of Appellant’s underwear when he
handed it to the deputy, and Appellant told the deputy the substance was crack.
{¶15} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶16} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the State did not
present sufficient evidence to convict him of illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto
grounds of a specified governmental facility, and the trial court erred in overruling his
Crim. R. 29(A) motion for a judgment of acquittal.
{¶17} A Crim. R. 29(A) motion for acquittal tests the sufficiency of the evidence
presented at trial. State v. Blue, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00250, 2002–Ohio–351, citing
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 6
State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 576, 1996–Ohio–91,
660 N.E.2d 724. Crim. R. 29(A)
allows a trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal when the State's evidence is insufficient
to sustain a conviction. A trial court should not sustain a Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal
unless, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the court finds no
rational finder of fact could find the essential elements of the charge proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Franklin, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007–CA–00022, 2007–Ohio–
4649 at ¶ 12, citing State v. Dennis,
79 Ohio St.3d 421, 1997–Ohio–372,
683 N.E.2d
1096.
{¶18} Appellant was convicted of violating R.C. 2921.36(A)(2):
(A) No person shall knowingly convey, or attempt to convey, onto the
grounds of a detention facility or of an institution, office building, or other
place that is under the control of the department of mental health and
addiction services, the department of developmental disabilities, the
department of youth services, or the department of rehabilitation and
correction any of the following items:
(2) Any drug of abuse, as defined in section 3719.011 of the Revised
Code[.]
{¶19} Appellant argues there was no evidence he carried the drugs into the jail in
his underwear. He argues before he handed the drugs to the deputy, he had been patted
down twice, and nothing was found on him.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00046 7
{¶20} Deputy Heath testified the holding cell in which Appellant changed his
clothes was checked and cleaned after each use, and was empty when Appellant entered
the cell. Although Appellant went behind a partition, the deputy had his eyes on Appellant
while Appellant was changing. Deputy Heath testified it is difficult to feel a baggie tucked
into a person’s underwear during a pat down search, and further, the body scan Appellant
was required to pass through was designed to only detect metal objects. Dep. Heath
testified when Appellant handed over his underwear, two baggies of a white substance
fell out. When the deputy asked Appellant what it was, Appellant responded it was crack.
{¶21} Further, Dep. Gurlea testified Appellant’s demeanor changed during the
arrest and process of transporting Appellant to the jail, giving rise to a suspicion Appellant
was under the influence of something. We find the State presented sufficient evidence,
if believed by a rational trier of fact, to find Appellant conveyed a drug of abuse into the
county jail.
{¶22} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶23} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur
