[Cite as State v. Dula, 2026-Ohio-2435.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {48}L-25-00088
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202301931
v.
Michael Dula DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 26, 2026
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, P.J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal of an April 25, 2025 judgment of the Lucas County Court
of Common Pleas, finding appellant guilty, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on
one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the
first degree, and thereafter sentencing appellant to a term of incarceration ranging from a
minimum term of three years, to a maximum term of four and one-half years, along with
the mandatory minimum fine of $10,000. Upon motion of appellant, the costs of prosecution were waived. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment
of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Michael Dula, sets forth the following two assignments of error:
I. THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED DID NOT CONTAIN
SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF
[THE] TWO SEARCH WARRANTS BASED ON EITHER THE
TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST, OR THE GOOD FAITH
EXCEPTION.
II. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL[,] WHEN A STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLANT WAS PRESENTED AS A LETTER, RATHER THAN AS
AN AFFIDAVIT, AND A RECORDING REFERENCED IN
APPELLANT’S MOTION WASN’T PRESENTED TO THE COURT.
Case Background
{¶ 3} The following facts are derived from the record of evidence presented to the
trial court. In 2022, a law enforcement undercover investigation of appellant was
coordinated between the Perrysburg Police Department and the DEA Toledo Office, in
which surveillance of appellant was conducted in response to the receipt of information
by a known informant suggestive that appellant, who possesses an extensive criminal
record including drug offenses, was engaging in drug trafficking.
{¶ 4} During the course of the investigation, law enforcement utilized a known,
reliable, confidential informant. This informant had previously provided information to
law enforcement that proved accurate, resulting in arrests and charges being filed for drug
offenses.
{¶ 5} On December 2, 2022, the confidential informant advised Detective Widmar
(“Widmar”) of the Perrysburg Police Department that, earlier that day, the confidential
informant had purchased narcotics from appellant, and had directly observed appellant
cutting, and preparing for sale, an estimated 500g of cocaine. In conjunction, the
confidential informant learned that appellant would be leaving the following day to travel
south to Tennessee to sell the cocaine. The confidential informant further advised
Widmar that appellant intended to utilize a rental car for the drug trafficking trip to
Tennessee.
{¶ 6} Based upon this information, law enforcement promptly conducted
additional surveillance of appellant and appellant’s residence. Consistent with the
information provided, on December 3, 2022, the day that the confidential informant
indicated that appellant would be traveling to Tennessee to engage in drug trafficking, a
white Kia motor vehicle owned by a rental car company was observed by the undercover
officers parked in appellant’s driveway.
GPS Tracking Device Warrant
{¶ 7} Based upon these circumstances, Widmar prepared an affidavit outlining this
information and requesting a search warrant to place a GPS tracking device on appellant’s rental vehicle. The search warrant was issued and the tracking device was put
into place.
{¶ 8} Upon appellant leaving his residence, driving the rental vehicle, electronic
surveillance of the vehicle’s location confirmed that appellant traveled to I-75, and began
driving south, again consistent with the information provided by the confidential
informant.
{¶ 9} On December 3, 2022, while appellant was traveling south on I-75 in the
rental vehicle, he was stopped by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for speeding. Upon
confirmation that the driver was appellant, and in coordination with the investigating law
enforcement agencies, a drug sniffing canine was dispatched to appellant’s location. The
canine gave a positive indication to the presence of unlawful drugs in appellant’s rental
vehicle and, thereafter, a search of the vehicle was conducted. The search of the vehicle
recovered one pound of marijuana, 90g of suspected crack cocaine, and 100g of
suspected cocaine. Field testing confirmed the substances recovered to be crack cocaine
and cocaine. The recovery of the cocaine from appellant’s rental vehicle, while appellant
was driving south, all corroborated the information that had been furnished by the
confidential informant to Widmar.
Residence Search Warrant and Indictment
{¶ 10} On December 9, 2022, following the December 3, 2022, recovery of
cocaine from appellant’s rental vehicle, a search warrant was next obtained for
appellant’s Toledo residence, likewise supported by the Widmar affidavit, the veracity of which had been subsequently confirmed by law enforcement during the above-described
events of December 3, 2022. During the search of appellant’s residence, a measuring
scale and plastic baggies, consistent with drug trafficking, were recovered.
{¶ 11} On June 22, 2023, based upon the foregoing, appellant was indicted on one
count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the first
degree, one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of
the first degree, with both counts accompanied by major drug offender specifications, and
one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.11(A), as
enhanced to a felony of the third degree based upon appellant’s prior felony convictions.
Motion to Suppress Filing
{¶ 12} On March 11, 2024, appellant filed dual motions to suppress, with the first
a general request to suppress all evidence obtained by the search warrants, and the second
a specific request, seeking to suppress all evidence recovered from a DVR obtained
during the search of appellant’s residence. On April 4, 2024, the State filed a brief in
opposition.
Motion to Suppress Ruling
{¶ 13} On August 21, 2024, the trial court ruled on the motions to suppress,
holding in pertinent part,
On December 9, 2022, a search warrant was executed at [appellant’s
residence in Toledo]. The evidence obtained. . . led to defendant
being charged with felony drug offenses. The search warrant was
issued following an undercover investigation, including information
obtained from a confidential informant.
Defendant’s general motion to suppress argues that there was not
sufficient information in the affidavit to permit a magistrate to
determine that probable cause existed to search the residence
because there was no information provided that drugs were being
stored or sold from the residence. . .Detective Widmar sought the
search warrant for the premises. . .In May, 2022, [the confidential
informant] provided information to [BCI] that the [confidential
informant] had purchased drugs from defendant on multiple
occasions and at various locations. [The confidential informant] has participated in several other drug-related investigations. . . On
December 2, 2022, [the confidential informant] informed officers
that defendant intended on renting a vehicle and traveling to
Tennessee [to engage in drug trafficking]. On that day, [the
confidential informant] met with defendant at the premises
[appellant’s residence] and observed defendant possessing what [was
estimated to be] 500g of cocaine. Defendant was later pulled over in the rental vehicle with marijuana and cocaine [recovered from
appellant’s] vehicle. . .
The Court first finds that probable cause existed to search the
premises. The warrant contains sufficient evidence that drug activity was present at the residence. [The confidential informant]
personally interacted with defendant [at his residence] in relation to drug trafficking. Most importantly, [the confidential informant]
witnessed what he estimated to be 500g of cocaine at the premises
one day before the search warrant was executed. The finding of
probable cause was not based upon wholly conclusory statement[s],
but rather from direct information that drugs were present at the
residence provided by [the confidential informant], a reliable source as averred by the detective. As such, the affiant provided sufficient information that formed a nexus between defendant’s drug activity
outside of the premises to the premises themselves. [The
confidential informant’s] statement was sufficient information upon
which the issuing magistrate could find that probable cause existed
that drug trafficking was occurring at the residence. . . A reading of the entire affidavit reveals. . .the detective averred that [the
confidential informant] has worked on prior investigations and has
proven reliable, that [the confidential informant] has cooperated for many years as an informant, and that his information in the past has led to seizures of drugs and led to arrests. The affiant in this matter specifically stated that information provided by [the confidential
informant] has been corroborated through surveillance an
investigation and is considered to be reliable by law enforcement. .
.Defendant presented an unverified letter from his girlfriend that he
was not in the rental vehicle or at the house at the time that [the
confidential informant] was at the house and viewed a large amount
of cocaine. The letter is not authenticated in any way and is not
presented as an affidavit. . .Defendant’s warrant motion to suppress
is hereby denied. . .The DVR system does not reasonably fall within
any of the categories of items to be searched [in the residence]
contained within the warrant. . .As the DVR was not within the scope
of the warrant. . . The court orders the suppression of the DVR and
any evidence derived therefrom. (Emphasis added).
Plea and Sentencing
{¶ 14} On March 10, 2025, following the motion to suppress determination,
granting it as pertains to the DVR contents, and denying it as to the remainder, appellant
entered a negotiated plea to one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the first degree. In exchange, the remaining offenses were
dismissed. In addition, the court adopted the voluntarily negotiated, recommended term
of incarceration, ranging from a mandatory minimum term of three years, to a maximum
term of four and one-half years. A timely notice of appeal was filed.
First Assignment: Motion to Suppress
{¶ 15} In the first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence stemming from the
search warrants for appellant’s residence and rental vehicle. We are not convinced.
Totality of the Circumstances Probable Cause Determination
{¶ 16} As held by this court in State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-4090,¶ 19-22 (6th
Dist.),
Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law
and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. The
trial court acts as the trier of fact. Although we must accept any findings of
fact that are supported by competent, credible evidence, we conduct a de
novo review to determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal
standard, and this independent review is done without deference to the trial
court. State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-1574, ¶ 7, citing
Burnside at ¶ 8; State v. Jones-Bateman, 2013-Ohio-4739, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.). . .
A reviewing court does not conduct a de novo review of the magistrate’s
probable cause determination. State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 330
(1989). Instead, we must ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis,
considering the totality of the circumstances, for concluding that probable
cause existed. Castagnola at ¶ 35, citing George at 329. . .An issuing
judge’s probable cause determination is entitled to great deference. State v.
Williams, 2007-Ohio-4472, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.), citing George at 330. . . A
judge may issue a search warrant based solely on facts presented by
affidavit or may require an affiant to appear and present oral testimony to
supplement the affidavit. Crim.R. 41(C)(1), (2). If the warrant is based
solely on information provided by affidavit, review of the issuing judge’s
probable cause determination-- both at the trial and appellate court levels--is limited to the information found within the four corners of the affidavit.
Castagnola at ¶ 39.
{¶ 17} Specifically, appellant asserts, “This court should find that the facts here
simply are not specific enough to support a search warrant. . . Significantly, there were no
facts as to any controlled buys by the [confidential informant] in support of this
affidavit.”
{¶ 18} The record reflects that the Widmar affidavit, from which the subject search
warrants were issued, specifically conveyed that on December 2, 2022, appellant sold the confidential informant, whom Widmar knew to be reliable based upon prior dealings,
500g of narcotics. The affidavit further specified that the confidential informant directly
observed appellant cutting up an estimated 500g of cocaine, and that appellant intended
to travel in a rental car to Tennessee to sell the cocaine. The affidavit further specifies
that undercover surveillance of appellant’s home on the following day consistently
observed a white Kia rental car parked in appellant’s driveway, in corroboration of the
confidential informant’s information.
GPS Tracking Device Warrant and Traffic Stop
{¶ 19} On the basis of the above information, as set forth in the affidavit, on
December 3, 2022, a search warrant was obtained to place a GPS tracking device on
appellant’s rental car. Later on December 3, 2022, undercover officers performing
electronic surveillance detected that appellant’s rental car had departed the premises.
Appellant later traveled to I-75, and headed south, in further corroboration of the
information provided by the confidential informant, and as set forth in the affidavit.
Upon subsequently being stopped by the OSHP for speeding on I-75, the coordinating
law enforcement agencies dispatched a drug sniffing canine to the scene. The canine
gave a positive indication for the presence of unlawful drugs in appellant’s rental vehicle,
and the ensuing search of the vehicle recovered one pound of marijuana, 90g of suspected
crack cocaine, and 100g of suspected cocaine. Field testing then confirmed the
substances to be crack cocaine and cocaine, in further corroboration of the information
provided by the confidential informant, as set forth in the affidavit.
Residence Search Warrant
{¶ 20} On December 9, 2022, in the context of appellant’s traffic stop
corroborating the confidential informant’s information conveyed to Widmar; namely, that
on December 2, 2022, the confidential informant observed appellant, in appellant’s
residence, preparing cocaine to take south to Tennessee in a rental car for the stated
purpose of selling said cocaine and, on December 3, 2022, appellant was stopped in a
rental car, traveling south on I-75, in possession of cocaine. As such, on the basis of the
same affidavit, a search warrant was then obtained for appellant’s residence. Execution
of that search warrant recovered scales and baggies, likewise consistent with drug
trafficking activities.
{¶ 21} Notably, appellant’s argument that the affidavit is fatally nonspecific, in
that it did not precisely define the amounts of cocaine that the confidential informant had
purchased from appellant in the past, and that there were no specific dates set forth in the
affidavit regarding appellant’s out-of-state trips, is unaccompanied by relevant legal
authority supportive of appellant’s proposition that the lack of the cited details renders the
affidavit insufficiently specific from which a magistrate may conclude that there is a fair
probability that evidence of drug activities would be found in appellant’s rental car and/or
residence.
{¶ 22} On the contrary, we find that the affidavit prepared by law enforcement, in
the course of an undercover surveillance operation, in which a known, reliable
confidential informant was utilized, setting forth the fundamental facts that the confidential informant acquired drugs from appellant, at appellant’s residence, on
December 2, 2022, observed appellant at that time preparing cocaine to be sold, and
learned that appellant planned to leave in a rental car to travel south in Tennessee shortly
thereafter for purposes of selling the cocaine, after which a white Kia rental car was
observed in appellant’s driveway, constituted the requisite substantial evidence for the
magistrate to conclude there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be
found in appellant’s rental car, in support of the search warrant issued to place a GPS
tracking device on appellant’s rental car.
{¶ 23} Upon the December 3, 2022 traffic stop of appellant, while traveling south
on I-75 in the rental car, the drug sniffing canine positively indicated on the rental car,
and quantities of cocaine were recovered, in further corroboration of the confidential
informant’s information conveyed to Widmar, as set forth in the subject affidavit.
Accordingly, on December 9, 2022, given the aligned instances of law enforcement
actions corroborating appellant’s present engagement in drug activities, as correctly
conveyed by the confidential informant to Widmar, and as set forth in the Widmar
affidavit, an additional search warrant was issued, on the basis of the same affidavit, for
appellant’s residence.
{¶ 24} On December 9, 2022, the search warrant was executed at appellant’s
residence, and scales and plastic baggies consistent with drug trafficking activities were
recovered.
{¶ 25} Based upon the totality of the circumstances set forth in the foregoing, we
find that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed,
and the evidence presented was sufficient to conclude that there was a fair probability
that evidence of drug offenses would be found at appellant’s rental vehicle and/or
residence based upon the verified indicia of appellant’s present engagement in drug
activities.
{¶ 26} Wherefore, we find appellant’s first assignment of error not well taken.
Second Assignment: Ineffective Assistance
{¶ 27} In the second assignment of error, appellant argues that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, appellant states that he,
[O]tained a signed letter from a witness [appellant’s girlfriend] disputing
his presence at the location of an alleged drug trafficking event on
December 2, 2022 when the [confidential informant] claimed to observed
appellant at the residence, in possession of approximately 500g of cocaine. .
.However, defense counsel took no steps to help the witness prepare an
affidavit of the same facts, so that it could reasonably have been considered
by the Court.
{¶ 28} As held by this court in State v. Davies, 2025-Ohio-261, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.),
It is well-established that in order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of
counsel, one must satisfy a two-pronged test. First, it must be shown that
counsel’s representation was deficient in some specific way, falling below
an objective standard of reasonableness. If the first prong is satisfied, then
it must be shown that, but for the demonstrated deficiency, the outcome of
the case would’ve been different. Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688,
104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In conjunction, appellate courts must be highly
deferential and retain a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell
within the range of reasonable professional assistance when reviewing
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id. at 689. Further, as held by this
court in State v. Jackson, 2021-Ohio-4619, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), ‘A properly
licensed attorney in Ohio is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37
Ohio St.3d 153 (1988). Tactical, strategic decisions do not constitute a
meritorious basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v.
Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (1995).
{¶ 29} As applied to this case, appellant has not demonstrated that counsel’s
decision to not present an alibi letter from appellant’s girlfriend in the form of a
supporting affidavit was anything other than a tactical determination, such that it could
arguably be demonstrated that it constituted deficient representation. Given the
credibility concerns of such evidence, appellant has not shown that counsel’s course of
action was anything other than a legitimate, strategic choice. The first prong of
Strickland has not been satisfied.
{¶ 30} However, even assuming arguendo that the first prong of Strickland was
satisfied, appellant has furnished no evidence demonstrative that the trial court would
have found an alibi affidavit from appellant’s girlfriend to be of greater credibility than
the law enforcement affidavit setting forth fundamental factual representations from a
known, reliable confidential informant, with the representations subsequently having
been shown to be accurate by subsequent law enforcement action. As such, appellant has
not shown, that but for the claimed deficiency, the outcome of the matter would have
been different. We find appellant’s second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 31} Wherefore, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is
hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.
24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.