State v. Rollison

2025 Ohio 72

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 9-24-21
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rollison, 2025-Ohio-72.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 9-24-21

v.

RICHARD EUGENE ROLLISON, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court General Division Trial Court No. 23-CR-421

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: January 13, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Joseph Edwards for Appellant

Martha Schultes for Appellee Case No. 9-24-21

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Rollison (“Rollison”), brings this appeal

from the May 22, 2024 judgment of the Marion County Common Pleas Court

sentencing him to prison after a jury found him guilty of Aggravated Possession of

Drugs and Possession of Cocaine. On appeal, Rollison argues that there was

insufficient evidence to convict him of the charges. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} On October 4, 2023, Rollison was indicted for Aggravated Possession

of Drugs (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(c), a second

degree felony, and Possession of Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(4)(a),

a fifth degree felony. Rollison pled not guilty to the charges.

{¶3} Rollison proceeded to a jury trial wherein he was convicted of both

charges. On May 24, 2024, Rollison was sentenced to serve an indefinite prison

term of 8-12 years on the Aggravated Possession of Drugs charge, and a consecutive

12 month prison term on the Possession of Cocaine charge. It is from this judgment

that Rollison appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our review.

Assignment of Error

The court erred in deciding that the evidence was sufficient enough to determine that beyond a reasonable doubt the -2- Case No. 9-24-21

appellant was guilty of aggravated possession of drugs and possession of cocaine.1

{¶4} In his assignment of error, Rollison argues that there was insufficient

evidence presented to convict him of Aggravated Possession of Drugs and

Possession of Cocaine. However, the arguments Rollison makes in his brief focuses

in part on his own testimony in his defense. Thus, Rollison seems to be arguing that

his convictions were also against the manifest weight of the evidence. In the

interests of justice, we will review both the sufficiency of the evidence and the

weight of the evidence.

Standard of Review

{¶5} It is well established that “[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the

evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively

different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the

syllabus.

{¶6} “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average

mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

1 In the wording of his stated assignment of error, Rollison contends that the evidence did not support his conviction for Possession of Cocaine. However, in Rollison’s brief he specifically states, “Appellant accepts responsibility for the cocaine found on his person at the time of his arrest[.]” (Appt.’s Br. at 5).

-3- Case No. 9-24-21

St. 3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Consequently, “[t]he relevant

inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “In deciding if the evidence was

sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of

witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact.” State v. Jones, 2013-

Ohio-4775, ¶ 33 (1st Dist.).

{¶7} By contrast, when reviewing whether a verdict was against the manifest

weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and examines

the conflicting testimony. Thompkins at 387. In doing so, an appellate court must

review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider

the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the

evidence, the factfinder “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. When

applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the

evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn

the trial court's judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting

State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.

-4- Case No. 9-24-21

Controlling Statutes

{¶8} Rollison was convicted of Aggravated Possession of Drugs

(methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(c), which reads as

follows:

(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.

***

(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following:

(1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana, cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, any fentanyl-related compound, hashish, and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(c) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds five times the bulk amount but is less than fifty times the bulk amount, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony of the second degree, and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term a second degree felony mandatory prison term.

{¶9} Rollison was also convicted of Possession of Cocaine in violation of

R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(4)(a). The provision of R.C. 2925.11 related to the amount of

cocaine in this case reads as follows:

-5- Case No. 9-24-21

(4) If the drug involved in the violation is cocaine or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of possession of cocaine. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(4)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section, possession of cocaine is a felony of the fifth degree, and division (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender.

Evidence Presented

{¶10} Detective Baldridge of the Marion Police Department obtained a

search warrant for 350 Fahey Street in Marion. The property contained a house, a

detached garage, and a “motor home” near the detached garage. Rollison was

staying in the motor home while a couple stayed in the house. Rollison used the

detached garage to run a mechanical and electrical repair business.

{¶11} Law enforcement officers conducted surveillance on the address prior

to executing the search warrant in hopes of taking Rollison “into custody while he

was outside.” (Tr .at 123). Officers were able to take Rollison into custody while he

was outside, and a search of the premises was then undertaken. There were four or

five people present on the property at the time of the search, including Rollison.

{¶12} Officer Colin Lowe of the Marion Police Department conducted a

search of the detached garage. Officer Lowe located a “black Nike bag” that

“resembled a lunch box” on a work bench in the detached garage. (Tr. at 99). When

he opened the bag, he found digital scales, a baggy of marijuana, miscellaneous drug

-6- Case No. 9-24-21

paraphernalia, and a bag “like a pop rocks kind of Ziploc bag” that contained

suspected methamphetamine. (Id.) The substance was sent to the lab and determined

to be just over 22 grams of methamphetamine.

{¶13} Rollison was brought into the garage and asked by the officers about

the bag. He affirmatively stated that the Nike bag was his and that the

methamphetamine inside the bag was his. He said he did not know how much

methamphetamine was in the bag, but he said it was likely “at least 7 grams.”

Rollison also admitted to having crack-cocaine in his pocket.

{¶14} During the search of the premises, officers also located a small amount

of methamphetamine in the room of Richard and Rachel Patrick, and another

“crystal substance” was found in the motor home.

{¶15} At trial, Rollison testified in his own defense that the crack-cocaine in

his pocket was given to him by another individual that morning. He testified that he

saw two other people in the house around his Nike bag before the search. He said

he wanted to take the blame at the time the drugs were found because he did not

want anyone else to get in trouble; however, he was surprised by the amount of

methamphetamine in the Nike bag. Rollison testified he had 7 grams and never had

22. He suggested that other people on the property must have hidden more

methamphetamine in the bag.

-7- Case No. 9-24-21

Analysis

{¶16} Rollison makes numerous arguments contending that the evidence did

not support his convictions. He argues that there was a discrepancy regarding the

amount of drugs found in the detached garage. He argues that he was not the only

person present on the property and he argues that he was not the only person who

had access to the black Nike bag.

{¶17} Dealing first with the sufficiency of the evidence, the State presented

evidence that there was 22 grams of methamphetamine in a bag in a detached garage

at 350 Fahey Street. The State presented evidence that Rollison used the garage for

his personal business. At the scene, Rollison claimed that the bag was his and that

the methamphetamine inside the bag was his. Rollison stated he did not know how

much methamphetamine he had, but he said he had at least 7 grams. Rollison’s

statement was recorded on body camera footage and presented to the jury. Rollison

also acknowledged that he had crack-cocaine in his pocket.

{¶18} Given that the drugs were found during the search and Rollison

acknowledged they were his, when looking at the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State as we are directed in a sufficiency review, we find that

sufficient evidence was presented to convict Rollison of possession of

methamphetamine as charged and possession of cocaine.

{¶19} We turn now to the weight of the evidence. Rollison contends that

other people in the residence had access to the Nike bag, and that he saw people -8- Case No. 9-24-21

“messing” with it prior to the search. He suggests that other people must have hid

their methamphetamine in the Nike bag so they would not get in trouble. Further he

argues that the bag of methamphetamine was not fingerprinted to prove his point.

{¶20} Contrary to Rollison’s arguments, Rollison claimed at the scene that

the methamphetamine in the bag was his. He even stated he did not know for certain

how much he had. His later claim that he never had that much methamphetamine is

a matter of credibility, and we will not second-guess the jury’s determination on that

issue.

{¶21} Moreover, there would have been little need to fingerprint the bag of

methamphetamine given that Rollison claimed at the scene that the

methamphetamine was his. The drugs were found in a bag he claimed was his, in a

garage that he used for his business. Thus the evidence supported Rollison’s

conviction for possession of methamphetamine. See State v. Carpenter, 2019-Ohio-

58 (3d Dist.)

{¶22} In sum, after reviewing the record, we do not find that this is one of

the exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against a conviction.

Therefore, Rollison’s assignment of error is overruled.

-9- Case No. 9-24-21

Conclusion

{¶23} Having found no error prejudicial to Rollison in the particulars

assigned and argued, his assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the

Marion County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/jlm

-10-