State v. Lee, 2025 Ohio 875

Billy S. Lee was stopped by police in Newark, Ohio while seated as a passenger in a vehicle he owned, during which officers found fentanyl and a firearm.
Lee admitted to having a pistol and initially claimed the containers with white powder in the car (later found to contain fentanyl) were his “candy,” but then denied ownership.
Lee was indicted for possession of a fentanyl-related compound (a fourth-degree felony) with a firearm specification.
On the morning of trial, Lee elected to fire his attorney and represent himself, after an extensive court colloquy and a signed written waiver of counsel; standby counsel was provided.
After a jury trial, Lee was found guilty on both the drug and firearm counts, and sentenced to a total of two years.

Issue	Lee's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was Lee’s waiver of counsel knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?	The waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary—court failed to fully advise him on defenses and possible penalties.	Lee was thoroughly questioned, advised, and understood his rights/risks; statute and precedent do not require advice on all defenses or penalty ranges.	Waiver valid; no error.
Was Lee’s conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Insufficient evidence of constructive possession of fentanyl; presence alone not enough.	Ample circumstantial evidence: Lee’s proximity, inconsistent statements, and evidence tying items to him.	Conviction upheld; evidence sufficient.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right of self-representation and standards for waiver of counsel)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (requirements for a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of counsel)
State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94 (2002) (waiver of counsel must be unequivocal and explicit)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (appellate standards for manifest weight of the evidence)
State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (definition and proof of constructive possession)