Ohio man saved by typo in verdict form Law Offices of Gerald R. Smith Attorneys Spokane Washington

Ohio man saved by typo in verdict form

Posted by: Gerald Smith
June 22, 2009
Topic: State Courts

An Ohio Appeals Court cut nine years off a man’s sentence for possession of crack cocaine after finding a typographical error in the verdict form made a determination of what the jury found impossible.

Calvin Eugene Wells was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of ten years after being found guilty of possession of 100 grams of crack cocaine. He was originally charged in four counts, but the jury acquitted him on two counts and could not reach a verdict on one count, which was eventually dismissed. He was found guilty on the remaining possession of crack cocaine count.

Ohio law mandates that the degree of an offense involving crack cocaine is determined by the quantity. Possession of 100 or more grams of crack cocaine is a first degree felony, punishable by a mandatory term of ten years and Wells was sentenced accordingly.

After a procession of attorneys failed to process his appeal according to reports, a court appointed attorney successfully argued the verdict form did not establish the quantity. The form stated: “[w]e, the Jury, find the Defendant Guilty of the offense of POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE. * * * We the jury, further find that the amount of crack cocaine was in the amount exceeding ten one hundred (100) grams as charged in the indictment.”

The word “ten” in the phrase “ten one hundred (100) grams” is an extraneous typographical error. The Court of Appeals held the verdict form was unclear and the Court could not determine what the jury understood “ten one hundred (100) grams” to mean. While it could mean 100 grams, it could also mean 10/100 (0.10) of a gram.

Because no quantity could be determined, the offense could only be classified as a fifth degree felony with a maximum sentence of one year. Wells has already served nearly four years, and he is due to be released after a hearing.

Coincidentally, the case had other problems. Shortly after the conviction, drug evidence and money related to the case was stolen from a courthouse vault. About the same time, several hundred thousand dollars was stolen from vaults maintained by the local police and prosecutor’s office. An intern in the prosecutor’s office was convicted of the latter offense.

Finally, the trial court did not enter a proper entry of conviction until September 2008, nearly three years after the conviction and sentence.

Opinion