State v. Coleman, 2015 Ohio 3907

In April–June 2014 Coleman lived with Julie at 352½ Boston Ave.; police responded June 7, 2014 after reports of a possible meth lab and a related domestic disturbance.
Officers found materials and equipment in the bedroom consistent with meth manufacture; forensic testing confirmed methamphetamine residue on items.
Coleman had purchased pseudoephedrine six times from four pharmacies between April 10 and May 19, 2014; pharmacy/NPLEx records were obtained and admitted at trial.
Coleman was indicted on four counts: Illegal Manufacture of Methamphetamine in the Vicinity of a Juvenile (Count 1), Illegal Assembly/Possession of Chemicals for Methamphetamine in the Vicinity of a Juvenile (Count 2), Endangering Children (Count 3), and Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Count 4).
Jury convicted Coleman on Counts 1, 2 and 4; acquitted on Count 3. Court imposed concurrent mandatory terms (sentences later challenged on allied-offense grounds).
Coleman appealed alleging ineffective assistance for failing to object to pharmacy records, improper multiple convictions for allied offenses, and that the trial court improperly limited defense opening statement regarding another alleged lab.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance for failure to object to pharmacy/NPLEx records	State: pharmacy records were business records properly authenticated under Evid.R. 803(6) and statutory duties (NPLEx) supported admissibility	Coleman: records lacked foundation (no person with knowledge, not shown made at/near time), so counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Overruled — counsel not ineffective; witnesses and statutes established ordinary-course, trustworthy foundation for business-records exception
2. Allied-offense merger of manufacture and possession/assembly counts	State: prosecuted both counts and elected sentencing — offenses reflect distinct statutory elements	Coleman: possession/assembly and manufacture are allied offenses of similar import and cannot support multiple punishments	Granted in part — convictions affirmed but multiple sentences vacated; remanded for election/resentencing under Ruff and Whitfield principles
3. Limitation on opening statement reference to separate alleged lab	State: trial court properly restricted argument absent foundation; evidence rule and in limine practice allow exclusion until admissibility shown	Coleman: exclusion prevented defense from presenting alternative-perpetrator theory in opening	Overruled — court did not bar evidence outright but required foundation; no record that proffered evidence was later excluded, and opening statements are not evidence

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (allied-offense analytic framework: conduct, animus, import)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (remedy and resentencing when allied-offense multiple punishments imposed)
State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (Evid.R. 803(6) witness qualification for business records)