State v. Phillips, 2014 Ohio 4335

On April 4, 2013, Toledo officers responded to a domestic complaint; they located appellant Jeronica Phillips sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle nearby.
Officers activated lights, ordered Phillips to show his hands; he kept his right hand in his pocket and resisted commands during a takedown.
After Phillips was taken to the ground, a plastic baggie containing 2.39 grams of crack cocaine was found about 12–24 inches to his right; no fingerprints or DNA tests were performed on the baggie.
Phillips was charged with and, after a jury trial, convicted of possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11). He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment plus 861 days for two postrelease-control violations; the possession sentence was ordered consecutive.
Phillips appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) manifest weight of the evidence, (2) sufficiency of the evidence, (3) that the postrelease-control-based portion of his sentence is void, and (4) denial of a continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession	State: evidence that Phillips kept hand in pocket, baggie found within 2 ft after his hand "flew out" supports constructive possession	Phillips: proximity and possibility someone else dropped the baggie make evidence insufficient	Held: Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; conviction affirmed
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: officers’ testimony and video supported jury verdict	Phillips: evidence was equivocal and jury lost its way	Held: Court, acting as thirteenth juror, found verdict not against manifest weight; conviction stands
Validity of sentence portion for postrelease-control violations	State: prior proceedings presumed regular; appellant did not include prior records in trial record	Phillips: prior postrelease control was improperly imposed, so PRC-based sentence portion is void	Held: Court presumed regularity of prior proceedings; appellant’s motion to supplement record denied; assignment not well-taken
Denial of continuance	State: trial court properly exercised discretion; defense had prior opportunity	Phillips: denial prejudiced ability to prepare witnesses	Held: No abuse of discretion in denying continuance; assignment not well-taken

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight)
State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency test phrasing)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (constructive possession definition)
State v. Chapman, 73 Ohio App.3d 132 (proximity as circumstantial evidence for possession)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (trial-court-review standard explained in manifest-weight context)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (factors for evaluating continuance requests)