State v. Pulley, 2013 Ohio 1624

Pulley was convicted of trafficking in marijuana under 200 grams and sentenced to three years of community control in Hamilton County.
Police stopped a car for following too closely; strong odor of marijuana observed; Pulley, a passenger, was searched after officers separated her from the driver.
Two bundles of money and large marijuana bundles were found; money amount disputed (approx. $4500–$5000) and money tied to Pulley’s claimed business and car sale.
Lab analysis confirmed 42 grams of marijuana in one bundle; total marijuana recovered weighed 91 grams from both bundles.
Pulley challenged (among others) the denial of suppression, separation-order violations, discovery timing, and sufficiency of evidence for trafficking; court affirmed trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Postrelease-control notice required?	Pulley contends court failed to inform about postrelease control.	Pulley argues failure to advise renders sentence unlawful.	No notice required; no prison term imposed
Denial of new counsel on day of trial	Pulley claims lack of readiness and communication justified appointment of new counsel.	Pulley's trial counsel adequate; no complete breakdown shown.	No abuse of discretion; trial court acted within discretion
Separation-order violation and sanctions	Pulley argues witnesses violated separation order; sanction requested.	State asserts no prejudice and court properly handled the matter.	Trial court acted within discretion; no sanction required
Admission of statements and Miranda rights	Rule 16 and suppression issues regarding statements; alleged improper disclosure.	Labor report disclosed; officer testimony about weighing not excludable;	No error; statements were voluntary and disclosure sufficient
Sufficiency and weight of evidence for trafficking	Evidence supports trafficking given quantity, money, and concealment.	At most possession for personal use; insufficient for trafficking.	Evidence sufficient to convict of trafficking; not against weight

State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001) (invocation of right to remain silent must be unequivocal)
State v. Taylor, 1st Dist. No. C-020475, 2004-Ohio-1494 (2004) (separation-order remedies depend on circumstances)
State v. Seay, 1st Dist. No. C-040763, 2005-Ohio-5964 (2005) (standing to challenge car search; separation order context)
State v. Steadman, 2012-Ohio-3135 (1st Dist. 2012) (probable cause to search based on odor; standing analysis)
State v. Russell, 2006-Ohio-4450 (5th Dist. 2006) (informing on postrelease-control requirements when prison term imposed)