State v. Lawson

164 N.E.3d 1130

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.Thomas W. LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 2020-CA-16

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Greene County.

Rendered December 23, 2020

MARCY A. VONDERWELL, Atty. Reg. No. 0078311, Greene County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

JAY A. ADAMS, Atty. Reg. No. 0072135, 100 North Detroit Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

FROELICH, J.

{¶ 1} After a jury trial in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Thomas W. Lawson was found guilty of possession of a fentanyl-related compound, trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, trafficking in heroin, aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine), and two counts of possession of heroin. The two trafficking offenses contained firearm specifications. After merging certain offenses and the firearm specifications, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of a minimum of 12 years in prison with a maximum term of 17.5 years.

{¶ 2} Lawson appeals from his convictions. He claims that the trial court erred in failing to continue the jury trial and to appoint new counsel, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that his convictions were not based on sufficient evidence. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed.

I. Procedural History

{¶ 3} On June 21, 2019, Lawson was arrested in Greene County and the car he was driving at the time of his arrest was impounded by the Riverside police due to an investigation in that Montgomery County jurisdiction. In a subsequent interview, Lawson informed a Riverside detective that he (the detective) would find guns and drugs in the vehicle. Based on Lawson's statements, the detective obtained a search warrant for the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the detective located approximately 68 grams of heroin and fentanyl in one baggie, 5.5 grams of Tramadol, heroin, and fentanyl in a second baggie, and 3.6 grams of methamphetamine in a third baggie. Officers also located a digital scale and two guns, among other items, in the vehicle.

{¶ 4} On August 30, 2019, Lawson was indicted in Greene County on eight counts:

Count	Offense	Statute	Degree	Firearm Spec?
1	Improper Handling of Firearms in a Motor Vehicle	2923.16(B)	F4
2	Possession of a fentanyl-related compound	2925.11(A)	F1
3	Trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound	2925.03(A)(2)	F1	Yes
4	Possession of heroin	2925.11(A)	F1
5	Trafficking in heroin	2925.03(A)(2)	F1	Yes
6	Aggravated possession of drugs	2925.11(A)	F3
7	Possession of heroin	2925.11(A)	F3
8	Escape	2921.34(A)(1)	F2

The indictment also included a forfeiture specification related to the two firearms.

{¶ 5} Lawson appeared with appointed counsel for his arraignment via video. He pled not guilty, and the court set a trial date of November 12, 2019. On November 8, Lawson moved for a continuance, stating that negotiations with the State were ongoing and the State needed additional time to confirm information provided by Lawson. The trial court rescheduled the trial for January 13, 2020. On November 25, the trial court again rescheduled the jury trial for February 18, 2020.

{¶ 6} On January 21, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended Lawson's defense counsel from the practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed if he met certain conditions.¹ See Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sullivan , 158 Ohio St.3d 423, 2020-Ohio-124, 144 N.E.3d 401. Eight days later, an assistant public defender moved to be substituted as counsel for Lawson. The trial court granted the motion. A status conference was scheduled for February 6; that conference was not transcribed.

{¶ 7} On February 7, the trial court held a Lafler hearing.² The prosecutor informed the court that the State had presented two plea offers, one with a stipulated sentence and one without. Defense counsel agreed that he had received those offers and had conveyed them to Lawson. Lawson indicated that he wanted to reject both offers. The court noted that trial was scheduled for February 18 and that defense counsel previously had conveyed that Lawson wanted to keep the trial date. When asked if that was correct, Lawson responded, "Yes, sir."

{¶ 8} The trial court asked defense counsel if he would be prepared for trial on February 18. Counsel responded:

Well, your Honor, as I had previously indicated, I indicated to Mr. Lawson, I can be ready, but I'm not going to be ready anywhere near to the degree that I would – to the standard that I would hold myself to be ready for a trial in this short amount of time, because you've seen, you've seen the charges. You've seen how much discovery, how many discs and things here (Indicating.)

* * * So, so I told my client, I've informed him that if we don't have a continuance, I won't be as prepared as I feel I should be. I'll do everything I can – basically there's only so many hours in the day is what I'm saying, and we're compacted. (Indicating.)

As you know, trials of this, you know, type of crime of this nature, we normally have a lot more than two weeks.

{¶ 9} The trial court then addressed Lawson about what his attorney had said. The court told Lawson that the decision to go forward on February 18 or instead postpone the case was up to him. The trial court advised Lawson to talk with his attorney about the trial date, saying "[I]f you want to go forward, we'll go forward. If you want a short postponement, you'll get it. Either decision is good by me." The court emphasized that defense counsel was a "very good lawyer" who was "very experienced in this courtroom" and could "probably answer any question you might have." Lawson discussed his frustration with the plea process and the course of the case. The court responded that it was not involved with the plea negotiations, but it would allow Lawson either to go forward with the scheduled trial or have a brief continuance, depending on what he decided.

{¶ 10} Defense counsel raised three additional issues with the trial court. He informed the court that he was having difficulty obtaining purported exculpatory evidence from original defense counsel. Counsel noted that multiple copies of the evidence existed, and he was trying to obtain it from other sources. Next, counsel noted that he was reviewing discovery and might lose the ability to raise a motion to suppress if the current trial date went forward. Third, counsel emphasized that "none of this mess we have that we're in today was the result of anything that Mr. Lawson has done."

{¶ 11} The parties asked the court about its general rule that plea agreements be presented to the court by one week before the trial date. The court said that it was suspending that rule due to the extraordinary circumstances in Lawson's case. The court stated that the parties could continue to negotiate a plea if they wished and reiterated that trial was scheduled to proceed on this case, but a continuance would be granted if Lawson decided he wanted a postponement.

{¶ 12} No motions were filed between February 7 and February 18, 2020.

{¶ 13} Prior to the beginning of trial on February 18, Lawson file a motion to sever the escape charge or, alternatively, to waive a jury trial on that charge. The court, counsel and Lawson then had extensive discussions prior to voir dire. Defense counsel told the court that he had spoken with Lawson that morning and explained to Lawson that he could request a continuance, accept a plea offer, or go to trial that morning. Counsel reported that Lawson initially responded with obscenities and a request for new counsel. Counsel informed the court that "at this time, my understanding is that he still does not want to have the trial. He'd like to get new counsel, which I would assume that would be to retain somebody, and it's his desire to not go forward today, and he says that I'm ineffective, haven't been doing different things and that."

{¶ 14} The court turned to Lawson and asked him, "[R]egarding the trial, you ready to go today?" Lawson responded, "Yes, sir." Defense counsel told the court, "Your Honor, that was contrary to what I was told * * *." The court replied that it "got [its] answer" and "let's move on."

{¶ 15} The court had a lengthy conversation with Lawson, in which Lawson expressed his views on the case, the State's conduct with respect to Lawson's cooperation in another unrelated case, and the State's pending plea offer. During the discussion, Lawson indicated that he had not seen certain discovery in this case. The court discussed with Lawson whether he wanted to waive a jury trial on the escape charge.

{¶ 16} At one point, Lawson asked if his attorney would change if he were to ask for a continuance. Lawson inquired, "[W]hy does my representation level drop from a court appropriated [sic] private practice lawyer who had my best interest to a public defender? Would I still be appointed a new counsel to represent me on the next trial date, or would I have to be stuck with [current defense counsel]?" The court replied, "I don't know the answer to that. I can't answer that right now. I don't know." Lawson stated, "And that's my dilemma because I don't feel based on the lack of time and the lack of communication that I've had with [counsel] that he has my best interest at heart."

{¶ 17} At that point, Lawson again began to discuss whether he believed the State could prove the drug possession charges against him. The trial court indicated that it would sever the escape charge and the trial would proceed on the drug counts. Defense counsel proposed proceeding on the escape charge instead, which he described as "a much more straightforward case."

{¶ 18} After a brief recess, the court indicated that it had a written motion to sever the escape charge and that if the motion were granted, the case would proceed on the drug charges that day. The court asked Lawson if he wanted to do that, and Lawson responded affirmatively. The trial court filed a written entry, granting the ...