State v. Graves, 2015 Ohio 3936

Defendant Michael K. Graves was indicted after police entered a Batavia hotel room and found Graves, others, two bags of drugs (one with 10 g heroin, another with .488 g including fentanyl/heroin), digital scales, multiple cell phones, razor blade, and packaging materials. A firearm was also found but related testimony was struck.
Graves moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry; the trial court denied suppression for lack of standing (no proof he was a registered or overnight guest).
Graves was tried jointly with a co-defendant, convicted by a jury of possession of heroin, aggravated possession (fentanyl), trafficking in heroin, and aggravated trafficking (fentanyl). The trial court merged duplicate counts and sentenced Graves to an aggregate 5-year term.
On appeal Graves raised four issues: suppression/standing, sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and failure to merge allied offenses.
The Twelfth District affirmed: denial of suppression was proper (no reasonable expectation of privacy), convictions were supported by the weight/sufficiency of the evidence (drugs/scales in close proximity; indicia of trafficking), counsel was not ineffective, and trafficking counts for different drugs were not allied offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Graves)	Held
1. Motion to suppress — standing to challenge hotel search	Entry and seizure were lawful; defendant lacked standing	Graves says he was an occupant/guest and had a reasonable expectation of privacy	Affirmed denial of suppression; Graves had no standing (not registered, no proof of overnight stay or personal effects tied to him)
2. Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for possession and trafficking	Evidence (10 g heroin, .488 g including fentanyl, scales, packaging, phones) supports constructive possession and trafficking	Graves argues no proof he exercised dominion or was involved in preparing/transporting drugs	Convictions not against manifest weight; evidence supports constructive possession and trafficking
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel acted reasonably; contested issues at trial	Graves contends counsel failed to develop standing evidence and to object to/limit firearm evidence	No ineffective assistance: failure to develop standing testimony wouldn’t change suppression result; firearm testimony was stricken and jury instructed to disregard; remaining evidence sufficient
4. Allied offenses — merger of trafficking counts	Different drugs and harms mean offenses are not allied	Graves argues the trafficking offenses arose from same conduct/room and should merge	No merger: trafficking in different controlled substances (heroin vs. fentanyl) are not allied under Ruff; convictions may stand

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment standing is personal; cannot assert others’ rights)
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (overnight hotel guests have Fourth Amendment privacy expectations)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (mere presence with consent may not create expectation of privacy)
United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (burden on defendant to prove legitimate expectation of privacy)
State v. Coleman, 45 Ohio St.3d 298 (Ohio on vicarious assertion of Fourth Amendment rights)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (R.C. 2941.25 allied-offense analysis: conduct, animus, import)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)