State v. Reeder

<p>[Cite as State v. Reeder, 2020-Ohio-5107.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY : STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case Nos. 2019-CA-39 &amp; Plaintiff-Appellee : 2019-CA-40 : v. : Trial Court Case Nos. 2018-CR-764 &amp; : 2019-CR-122 DESHAWN REEDER : : (Criminal Appeal from Defendant-Appellant : Common Pleas Court) ........... OPINION Rendered on the 30th day of October, 2020. ........... JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee CHARLES W. SLICER III, Atty. Reg. No. 0059927, 426 Patterson Road, Dayton, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. FROELICH, J. -2- {¶ 1} In a joint plea hearing, Deshawn Reeder pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony, in Clark C.P. No. 2018-CR-764 and to possession of heroin, a fourth-degree felony, in Clark C.P. No. 2019-CR-122. The trial court subsequently sentenced Reeder to 12 months in prison for aggravated possession of drugs and 18 months in prison for possession of heroin, to be served concurrently. {¶ 2} Reeder appeals from his convictions, challenging the trial court’s imposition of prison sentences, pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(iii), and its calculation of jail time credit. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgments will be vacated to the extent that they imposed prison sentences, and those sentences will be modified to community control sanctions for a period of up to five years. In all other respects, including the orders regarding the forfeiture of currency, the trial court’s judgments will be affirmed. Reeder’s community control sanctions will be deemed completed and terminated immediately. Finally, because Reeder should not have been sentenced to prison, his post-release control will be vacated. I. Factual and Procedural History {¶ 3} According to the presentence investigation report (PSI), on August 14, 2018, Springfield Police Officer Massie stopped a Jeep Cherokee that Reeder was driving due to the absence of a front license plate. Massie learned that Reeder did not have a driver’s license. After Reeder consented to a search of his vehicle and his person, Officer Massie removed a large quantity of cash and 15 grams of marijuana from Reeder’s front pants pockets. Officer Massie noticed a white powdery substance rolled inside the currency, and Reeder admitted to snorting cocaine using a rolled up dollar bill. Inside -3- the vehicle, Officer Massie located a gun, several cell phones, digital scales, and “misc. property.” Reeder was charged with trafficking in drugs, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and taken to the Clark County Jail. Reeder was also cited for driving without a license. {¶ 4} At the jail, Reeder initially denied that he had any contraband on his person. However, when a deputy began searching Reeder’s pockets, Reeder indicated that he may be in possession of additional drugs. The deputy had already pulled out Reeder’s left front pocket, and several pills dropped to the floor. The pills were imprinted with “RP7.5 325” and were suspected to ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4802012/state-v-reeder/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid State v. Reeder in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State v. Reeder. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State v. Reeder is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.