Background
On February 14, 2024, U.S. Marshals searching for fugitives in Zanesville, Ohio, entered an apartment on Clay Street and discovered Lindsie Riley and her boyfriend, Benjamin Hanning, in an upstairs bedroom where oxycodone, methamphetamine, fentanyl, alprazolam, and drug paraphernalia were visible in plain sight. Riley told officers the drugs were hers; at trial she recanted, testifying the drugs belonged to Hanning—a known local drug dealer—and that she had falsely claimed ownership out of fear of him. The Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas conducted a bench trial on October 30, 2025, and found Riley guilty of aggravated possession of drugs (F-2), possession of a fentanyl-related compound (F-4), and possession of drug paraphernalia (M-4).
A separate incident on March 17, 2025, while the first case was pending, resulted in a second indictment. A patrol officer found Riley standing outside a drug house at 3:00 a.m.; she voluntarily disclosed outstanding warrants and admitted to having needles and drugs on her person. Officers recovered 0.99 grams of methamphetamine. Riley pleaded guilty to possession of drugs (F-5), possession of drug paraphernalia (M-4), and possession of drug abuse instruments (M-1) in that case.
At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an indefinite term of five to seven and a half years on the lead felony, with all sentences in each case running concurrently and the second case running concurrently to the first. Riley timely appealed, challenging both the weight of the evidence supporting her felony convictions and the trial court’s imposition of maximum jail terms on her misdemeanor counts without an explicit “worst form of the offense” finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed on both assignments of error. On the manifest-weight challenge, the court held that the trial court did not lose its way in finding Riley constructively possessed the controlled substances. Under Ohio law, constructive possession requires only that a defendant be able to exercise dominion and control over the contraband, and ownership need not be proven. The court noted that Riley was found in bed with Hanning surrounded by drugs and paraphernalia in close proximity, and that she herself admitted on cross-examination that Hanning supplied her with drugs—evidence the factfinder could weigh against her trial testimony attributing sole ownership to Hanning.
On the sentencing challenge, the court held that a trial court imposing a maximum misdemeanor sentence is not required to make on-the-record findings that the defendant committed the worst form of the offense. Reviewing courts presume the trial court considered the applicable statutory factors under R.C. 2929.22 even when the record is silent. Additionally, R.C. 2929.22(C) is written in the alternative: maximum jail time is also authorized where the offender’s conduct and response to prior sanctions demonstrate that the longest term is necessary for deterrence. The record showed Riley had prior misdemeanor drug convictions, violated her bond by testing positive for drugs, and committed a new offense while her first case was pending—independently supporting the maximum sentences.
Key Takeaways
- Constructive possession in Ohio does not require proof of ownership; proximity to contraband and the ability to exercise dominion and control are sufficient, even when a co-occupant is a known drug dealer.
- A trial court need not make explicit on-the-record findings to impose a maximum misdemeanor jail term; appellate courts presume the statutory sentencing factors were considered.
- R.C. 2929.22(C)’s “worst form of the offense” language is not the sole gateway to a maximum misdemeanor sentence—a history of prior sanctions and demonstrated need for deterrence independently authorizes the longest term.
- A defendant’s own trial testimony admitting drug use supplied by a co-occupant can undermine a manifest-weight challenge premised on that same co-occupant’s exclusive ownership of the drugs.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of Ohio’s constructive possession doctrine in shared-bedroom drug cases. Defense arguments that drugs belong to a more culpable co-inhabitant—even a known dealer—will not defeat possession charges so long as the defendant had the practical ability to exercise control over the contraband. Attorneys handling similar cases should expect courts to treat close physical proximity and co-occupancy as strong circumstantial evidence of constructive possession regardless of ownership claims.
The court’s treatment of the misdemeanor sentencing issue also has practical significance for practitioners: it confirms that Ohio trial courts retain broad discretion to impose maximum misdemeanor terms based on deterrence grounds alone, without articulating “worst form” findings, provided the record supports the need for deterrence. Defense counsel challenging misdemeanor maximums on appeal must therefore address both prongs of R.C. 2929.22(C) and cannot rely solely on the absence of an explicit worst-form finding.