State v. Day, 2022 Ohio 1954

In Feb 2020 Eric Day was convicted of having a weapon while under disability and placed on three years of community control.
Eighteen months later officers, while investigating others, found Day on the premises; he had a ring of keys that included keys to a Mercedes that contained a large quantity of marijuana and about three-quarters of a brick of fentanyl.
Officers searched Day’s apartment (keys briefly handed to his son); they found drugs in common areas and, after obtaining a warrant, opened a padlocked bedroom closet to find multiple rifles, revolvers, semi‑automatic pistols, and a shotgun.
Day’s son and an unidentified third party were later indicted for possession of the guns and the vehicle drugs; Day was not indicted but the probation officer charged community control violations for Rules 1, 3, 4, and 10.
Day pled no contest to Rules 1 and 10, contested Rules 3 (no firearms) and 4 (no illegal drugs). The trial court found violations of Rules 1, 3, 4, and 10, revoked community control, and imposed a 12‑month prison term.
On appeal Day argued (1) the revocation lacked substantial evidence as to Rules 3 and 4 and (2) the court violated his due‑process right to present evidence at the revocation hearing; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supported finding Day violated Rule 3 (no firearms) and Rule 4 (no illegal drugs)	State: Day had access to and control over the vehicle with drugs and the firearms in his apartment, supporting constructive possession and violation of community control	Day: Others were charged with possession; mere "access" is not the same as possession/obtainment required by the rules	Court: Access can establish constructive possession; substantial evidence supported violations of Rules 3 and 4
Whether Day was denied due process by not being asked if he wished to present evidence at the revocation hearing	State: The record shows defense counsel was given opportunity for argument and did not proffer evidence	Day: The court failed to ask him whether he wanted to present evidence, depriving him of an opportunity to be heard	Court: Review limited to plain error; absent any proffer, cannot show prejudice or plain error; no due‑process reversal

State v. Butler, 42 Ohio St.3d 174 (1989) (constructive possession may be shown by immediate access to a weapon)
State v. Litreal, 170 Ohio App.3d 670 (2006) (due process requires the opportunity to present evidence at trial or a critical hearing)