State v. Cauthon, 2019 Ohio 1809

Around 2:20 a.m., appellant Tiffani Cauthon was stopped for speeding, following too closely, and weaving.
Officer smelled burnt marijuana from the vehicle and from Cauthon; she was the sole occupant and admitted using marijuana.
In the center console next to the driver’s seat officers found stacked items: a baggie of marijuana, Cauthon’s work ID, and a baggie later tested as methamphetamine; a partially smoked marijuana cigarette was found floating in a cup of soda in the cup holder.
Cauthon performed poorly on several field sobriety tests (including convergence failure) and refused a urine test.
She was tried by jury, convicted of aggravated possession of drugs, OMVI, possession of marijuana, driving without a license, and lane violations, and sentenced to five years community control.
On appeal she challenged (1) sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence for aggravated possession and OMVI and (2) a sentencing discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written entry regarding where a violation-of-community-control sentence would be served.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for aggravated possession (constructive possession of methamphetamine)	Evidence (drugs found in center console next to driver, Cauthon’s ID on top of drugs) establishes constructive possession	Cauthon: other users had access to vehicle (rented in friend’s name); Kingsland-type argument that proximity/appearance insufficient	Affirmed: jury could find constructive possession based on proximity, stacked items, and exclusive occupancy
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for OMVI (under influence of drug)	Officer observed traffic violations, odor of marijuana, poor FST performance, convergence failure, and refusal to submit urine — supports OMVI	Cauthon: alternative explanations for poor FST performance (cold, misunderstanding alphabet test); refusal due to time constraints, not consciousness of guilt	Affirmed: evidence sufficient and not a manifest miscarriage of justice
Sentencing discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written entry (where jail term would be served upon violation of community control)	State did not respond on appeal	Cauthon: written entry conflicts with oral sentencing; presence required at sentencing - entry must match pronouncement or resentencing required	Sustained in part: remanded — if court intended county jail, issue nunc pro tunc to conform entry; if intended state reformatory, resentencing required

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (describes manifest-weight standard and appellate role as thirteenth juror)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
State v. Butler, 42 Ohio St.3d 174 (1989) (discusses actual vs. constructive possession)
State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (constructive possession requires dominion and control; may be proven circumstantially)
State v. Kingsland, 177 Ohio App.3d 655 (2008) (reversed possession conviction where passenger status and location of chemicals rendered knowledge/proximity inference unreasonable)