State v. Lyall
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Lyall, 2022-Ohio-2016.] COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vsCase No. CT2021-0047 JOHN LYALL Defendant-Appellant OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2020-0482 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 14, 2022 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant RYAN AGEE 100 S. Lafayette Street Camden, Ohio 45311 RONALD L. WELCH Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio 27 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 189 Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0047 2 Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant John Lyall appeals the judgment entered by the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him of possession of drugs (R.C. 2925.11(A)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (R.C. 2925.14(C)(1)) following his pleas of no contest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of sixteen months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On May 29, 2020, police stopped the vehicle Appellant was driving. During a search of the vehicle, police found a baggie of suspected narcotics. Police also found a cut red straw. Appellant admitted the substance in the baggie was heroin; however, after testing, police discovered the substance was 1.95 grams of fentanyl. {¶3} Appellant was indicted by the Muskingum County Grand Jury on possession of drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The parties entered a plea agreement, in which Appellant agreed to plead no contest to both charges in the indictment. As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated the counts of the indictment would not merge. {¶4} The trial court convicted Appellant upon his pleas of no contest. Appellant was sentenced to sixteen months incarceration for possession of drugs and 30 days local incarceration for possession of drug paraphernalia, to be served concurrently. {¶5} It is from the August 6, 2021 judgment of conviction and sentence Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error: Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0047 3 LYALL RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. {¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was ineffective by entering into a stipulation the offenses would not merge as allied offenses of similar import. {¶7} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Id. {¶8} In State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.2d 892, ¶25, the Ohio Supreme Court held when considering whether there are allied offenses which merge into a single conviction under R.C. 2941.25(A), both the trial court and the reviewing court on appeal must first take into account the conduct of the defendant. In other words, how were the offenses committed? Id. If any of the following is true, the offenses cannot merge and the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0047 4 offenses: (1) the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance—in other words, each offense caused separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, or (3) the offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation. Id. {¶9} We find Appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable probability the trial court would have merged the offenses as allied offenses of similar import had the parties not stipulated the offenses would not merge. The facts as read into the record demonstrate Appellant was in possession of two separate and distinct items: a baggie of fentanyl which formed the basis of the charge of possession of drugs, and a cut red straw which formed the basis of the possession of drug paraphernalia charge. This is not a case where Appellant was charged with possession of drugs based solely on residue found inside or on the drug paraphernalia, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate the cut straw was possessed with the same animus or motivation as possession of the baggie of fentanyl. Even in the absence of Appellant’s stipulation, we find the trial court could have concluded the items were possessed separately, with separate motivation or animus. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0047 5 {¶10} The assignment of error is overruled. {¶11} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to Appellant. By: Hoffman, P.J. Wise, John, J. and Delaney, J. concur
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
