State v. Rivera

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: C-250567
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rivera, 2026-Ohio-2209.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250567 TRIAL NO. B-2500014-A Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY LUIS ANGEL RIVERA, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 6/12/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Rivera, 2026-Ohio-2209.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250567 TRIAL NO. B-2500014-A Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION LUIS ANGEL RIVERA, :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 12, 2026

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Timothy J. McKenna, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Luis Angel Rivera was indicted on January 9,

2025, for second-degree felony aggravated trafficking in drugs and third-degree felony

trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), and second-degree felony

aggravated possession of drugs and third-degree felony possession of cocaine in

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Following a jury trial, Rivera was convicted of aggravated

possession of drugs and possession of cocaine. He was acquitted of the trafficking

charges. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate indefinite four-to-six-year term

in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

{¶2} Rivera now appeals, arguing his convictions were not supported by

sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the

evidence shows that Rivera knew about the contraband that was found in his car, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

A. The Traffic Stop

{¶3} On December 31, 2024, Cincinnati Police Officers Henderson and

Brown observed Rivera’s Honda Accord with expired plates and heavy tint driving

slowly on Henshaw Avenue in the Camp Washington neighborhood, a known drug-

trafficking area. Officer Henderson activated his police lights. Rivera drove for

approximately ten seconds before turning into the lot of a Shell gas station and parking

at a pump. During the traffic stop, Rivera and his passenger—codefendant Maurice

Wilson—were removed from the car so the K-9 unit could conduct an open-air sniff of

the car.

{¶4} As Officer Henderson placed the handcuffs on Rivera, he informed

Rivera that the K-9 alerted on the car. Rivera attempted to flee on foot (despite being

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

handcuffed) but fell face-first onto the pavement and was apprehended.

{¶5} Officers discovered 37.699 grams of methamphetamine and 10.615

grams of crack cocaine between the passenger seat and the door, plus five cell phones

and $615 in cash in the middle console. The cash was made up of mostly $20 bills.

Rivera told the officers that the money was from cashing his paycheck. The search also

revealed that Wilson was carrying over $1000 in cash.

{¶6} Rivera was indicted alongside Wilson.1 Rivera’s matter proceeded to a

jury trial.

B. The Trial

1. Officer Sean Henderson’s Testimony

{¶7} Officer Henderson testified that he was working the “District 3 power

shift” in Camp Washington with his partner, Officer Kyle Brown, when they initiated

a traffic stop based on Rivera’s car having excessively tinted windows and an expired

license plate. Officer Henderson stated that the car was “slowly driving, idling down

Henshaw Street, which is . . . dimly lit . . . in Camp Washington.” He explained that it

is an area where “we’ve made several arrests” and where drug traffickers “typically sell

narcotics.” Officer Henderson stated that Rivera’s car was “extremely slow to stop” and

it did not stop for “approximately a block and a half to two blocks.”

{¶8} Officer Henderson explained that he asked the occupants to roll down

their windows because he was unable to see through the window tint. He testified that

he called for a K-9 unit due to the “totality of the circumstances,” including the area

Rivera was driving in, that he was slow to stop after the police lights were activated,

and the “extreme[]” nervousness of both occupants of the car as exhibited by their

1 Wilson pleaded guilty to and was convicted of trafficking in cocaine.

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

“labored breathing” and “visibly shaking with their hands.” Officer Henderson had

Rivera and Wilson exit from the car so the K-9 could be deployed.

{¶9} Officer Henderson testified that Rivera and Wilson were detained after

the dog alerted to the car, and that Rivera fled on foot while in handcuffs but was

apprehended.

{¶10} Officer Henderson testified that he then searched the passenger side of

Rivera’s car and found “a bag of narcotics mixed with both crack cocaine and crystal

meth.” Officer Henderson testified that he was confident that the bag contained

cocaine and methamphetamines based on his experience and training in narcotics and

the way it was packaged. Officer Henderson identified the physical evidence and the

lab report confirming the nature of the substances found.

{¶11} Officer Henderson testified that Rivera told the officers to look in the

car because he thought that “there was something in there,” which was why he

attempted to run from police. Officer Henderson did add that Rivera later retracted

those statements, saying that he did not know what was in the car. Officer Henderson

also explained that Rivera told the officers that the $615 in cash that was found in the

console and one of the five phones found belonged to him. Officer Henderson stated

that, judging from the crumpled state of the bills, the cash appeared to be related to

drug trafficking, and that having multiple phones is a further indication of trafficking.

{¶12} On cross-examination, Officer Henderson testified that Rivera and

Wilson were in earshot when Officer Dean reported to Officer Brown that the dog

alerted on the car. He stated that Rivera had been handcuffed and was about to be

placed in the police car when he ran. Officer Henderson recalled Rivera telling him

that the $615 in cash that was found in the console was from Rivera cashing his

paycheck.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2. Officer Kyle Brown’s Testimony

{¶13} Officer Brown testified that he was working patrol with his partner,

Officer Henderson, when they both observed Rivera’s car in the middle of the road.

Officer Brown activated the police lights.

{¶14} Officer Brown stated that Rivera should have pulled over on Colerain

Avenue instead of pulling into the Shell gas station. He explained that he told Rivera

that he would be detained because the drug dog alerted on the car, and Rivera began

to “tense up” and was “looking for an out.” Brown’s body-worn-camera (“BWC”)

footage was played, which showed Officer Brown informing Rivera that he was being

detained while handcuffing him, and Rivera ran a short distance after being

handcuffed but fell face-first onto the pavement.

{¶15} Officer Brown’s testimony echoed that of Officer Henderson regarding

the search of Rivera’s car, and that they suspected Rivera and Wilson of drug

trafficking based on the multiple cell phones and the amount of cash that they had on

hand. Officer Brown testified that Rivera stated that the car belonged to his girlfriend

and that the cash in the console was from his paycheck. Officer Brown, however, was

dubious, given the crumpled state of the $20 bills.

{¶16} Officer Brown testified that he decided to charge Rivera due to the time

of night when Rivera was driving, being slow to stop for officers, Rivera’s and Wilson’s

nervousness, the K-9 hit on Rivera’s car, and the crumpled-up cash found in the

console, and because Rivera told the officers that he did not know Wilson, yet was

driving Wilson around. He stated that Rivera’s attempt to flee alone “was another

guilty conscious thing” along with telling Officer Henderson to “just look in the vehicle,

you’ll find something.”

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3. Rivera is Found Guilty of Possession and Aggravated Possession

{¶17} At the conclusion of the testimony of the State’s witnesses and

admission of exhibits, Rivera moved an acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29. He asserted

that the State presented no evidence to prove that he “had any contacts whatsoever

with these drugs.” The State responded that Rivera “appeared to have proceeds from

drug [transactions] that he was in control over.” The trial court denied the Crim.R. 29

motion.

{¶18} Rivera was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs and possession

of cocaine. He was acquitted of the drug-trafficking charges. The trial court sentenced

Rivera to an aggregate indefinite four-to-six-year prison term.

{¶19} This appeal followed. Rivera has raised two assignments of error

challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

II. Analysis

A. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence

{¶20} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires the reviewing

court to determine whether the State satisfied its burden of production. State v.

Harper, 2025-Ohio-2059, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.). To determine whether a conviction is

supported by sufficient evidence, we “assess whether, construing the evidence in a

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

necessary elements of a given crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

State v. Rodriguez, 2024-Ohio-5832, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.).

{¶21} When applying the manifest-weight standard of review, a reviewing

court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether, in resolving conflicts

in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

State v. Champion, 2021-Ohio-4002, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78

Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).

{¶22} “A manifest-weight-of-the-evidence argument challenges the

believability of the evidence.” State v. Strietelmeier, 2022-Ohio-2370, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.),

quoting State v. Staley, 2021-Ohio-3086, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). It concerns the plaintiff’s

burden of persuasion. State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2351, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.). The trier of

fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses; thus, we afford

substantial deference to the trier of fact’s credibility determinations. Id.

{¶23} A conviction may be reversed on a manifest-weight review only in

exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Id. A

conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the fact

finder believed the prosecution’s testimony. Id. Thus, a defendant is not entitled to a

reversal on manifest-weight grounds merely because inconsistent evidence was

presented at trial; the trier of fact is free to believe some, all, or none of any witnesses’

testimony. State v. Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.).

1. Rivera Constructively Possessed the Contraband

{¶24} R.C. 2925.11(A) provides, “No person shall knowingly obtain, possess,

or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.” R.C. 2925.01(K)

defines “possession” as “having control over a thing or a substance but may not be

inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance through ownership or

occupation of the premises upon which the thing or substance is found.”

{¶25} Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Rainey, 2023-Ohio-

4666, ¶ 32 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 91 (1982), syllabus.

Constructive possession may exist when an individual, conscious of an object’s

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

presence, “is able to exercise dominion and control over an item, even if he does not

have immediate physical possession of it.” Id. at ¶ 33, quoting State v. Devaughn,

2020-Ohio-651, ¶ 32 (1st Dist.), citing Hankerson at the syllabus. As this court has

held, constructive possession can be established with “evidence that a defendant was

both aware of the presence of illegal drugs and had the power to control them.” Id.,

quoting Cincinnati v. Stirsman, 322 N.E.2d 282, 283 (1st Dist. 1974). Constructive

possession also exists when a person exercises or has the power to exercise dominion

and control over a known object—even if the defendant did not have physical contact

with it. Id. at ¶ 34. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish dominion and

control over an object. State v. Thomas, 2003-Ohio-1185, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.).

{¶26} Based on the totality of the circumstances, the State presented sufficient

evidence to support Rivera’s convictions for aggravated possession of drugs and

possession of cocaine. The officers were dubious about the true origin of the $615

found in the middle console of Rivera’s car, as it was “crumpled” or “crinkled,”

consistent with the appearance of cash used in drug-trafficking transactions, and

multiple phones were found in the car. Rivera claimed not to know Wilson yet chose

to drive Wilson around in an area known for drug trafficking.

{¶27} Although Rivera was the driver and the contraband was found tucked

between the passenger seat and door, the State did not have to show that Rivera had

physical control over the drugs. Officers testified that Rivera told them that he knew

something was in the car, which was the reason Rivera said he ran after being

handcuffed. The State presented sufficient evidence that Rivera knew of the

contraband in his car, and therefore, that he constructively possessed it. See Thomas

at ¶ 10 (constructive possession can exist when drugs are found in a vehicle, even

when the defendant is not the only person in the vehicle); State v. Mitchell, 2002 Ohio

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

App. LEXIS 1706, *7-8 (8th Dist. Apr. 18, 2002) (the defendant-driver had three

passengers, but was convicted of possession because police recovered a PCP cigarette

from the front seat on the passenger’s side and defendant-driver stated that the

passengers were sharing the cigarette); State v. Murrell, 2003-Ohio-2068, ¶ 17-19 (1st

Dist.) (defendant-driver constructively possessed the cocaine found in the trunk of the

car he was driving as defendant was frequently permitted to borrow the car, $1000 in

cash was found in the trunk along with the cocaine, and the cash found in the trunk

was secured with a black rubber band in the same fashion as the cash found in the

paper bag behind the driver’s seat, which defendant admitted to owning).

{¶28} Rivera had made statements to the officers that he knew there was

contraband in his car. The jury found the officers’ testimony credible. The record

contains nothing to suggest that the jury lost its way.

{¶29} Rivera’s first and second assignments of error are, therefore, overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶30} Rivera’s statement to police showed that he knew of the contraband in

his car, which means that he constructively possessed it. Accordingly, his convictions

were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.