State v. Thomason, 2017 Ohio 7447

Background

Detectives received an email tip that methamphetamine was being manufactured at a Motel 6; they used a pass key to check rooms rented by the suspect (Josh Hall).
In Room 228, officers knocked; appellant Jennifer Thomason delayed 3–5 minutes before answering while shuffling noises were heard inside; a man (Michael Dixon) was inside.
Detective Cleveland smelled methamphetamine from the room, entered, and observed Mason jars (one with clear liquid later identified as a methamphetamine precursor) and a backpack; lab equipment was later found in the room, another motel room, and a locked box in Dixon’s truck.
Thomason and Dixon were arrested; Thomason was indicted on manufacture, aggravated possession, and illegal assembly/possession of chemicals; manufacture count dismissed at trial, jury convicted on aggravated possession (second-degree felony) and illegal assembly/possession (third-degree felony).
Sentenced to three years on possession and a mandatory five years on the assembly/possession count; appeal raised ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress, insufficiency/weight of drug-amount evidence, and insufficiency/weight of possession evidence.
Court affirmed: no suppression error due to statutory exigency for meth labs, statutory definition of methamphetamine supported weight calculation based on the precursor mixture, and sufficient circumstantial evidence supported constructive possession.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were officers required to obtain a warrant before entering/searching the motel room?	Warrantless entry permissible because officer smelled meth and R.C. 2933.33(A) creates exigent circumstances for meth labs.	Counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence from a warrantless entry into a hotel room.	Exigent circumstances existed (odor + meth lab risk); suppression motion would likely have failed; no ineffective assistance.
Must the State prove the weight of pure methamphetamine (not precursor mixture) for aggravated-possession grading?	State: statutory definition of methamphetamine includes "mixture," so total weight of the precursor mixture may be used.	Thomason: must prove actual weight of methamphetamine separate from precursor/fillers.	Court held R.C. 2925.01(I)(I) includes mixtures containing methamphetamine; total weight of the liquid precursor sufficed.
Was there sufficient evidence Thomason possessed the drugs/chemicals?	State: circumstantial evidence (residence in room, shuffling, soaked backpack, coffee filters/solvent, lab items in room/truck) supported constructive possession.	Thomason: items were next to Dixon’s bed and Dixon testified they were his; mere access to premises insufficient.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence that Thomason had dominion and control and was aware of items; convictions not against manifest weight.
Did counsel’s failure to file suppression motion prejudice the defense?	State: no reasonable probability that suppression would have changed outcome given exigent circumstances and other evidence.	Thomason: failure to move to suppress denied effective assistance.	No prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails under Strickland.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment protects homes against warrantless entry absent exigent circumstances)
Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (probable cause plus exigent circumstances required for warrantless home entry)
State v. Gonzales, 143 Ohio St.3d 1402 (Ohio Supreme Court decision addressing weight analysis for controlled substances)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (constructive possession requires dominion, control, and awareness)
State v. Andrews, 177 Ohio App.3d 593 (Fourth Amendment and hotel-room privacy principles applied in Ohio appellate context)