Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Ramirez

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1066
• Docket Number: 2024 CA 0089

• Judges: Gormley

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Defendant's conviction on a felony drug-possession charge was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Ramirez, 2026-Ohio-1066.]

COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2024 CA 0089

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion & Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas
of Richland County,
ALEJANDRO M. RAMIREZ, Case No. 2024 CR 0351 N

Defendant - Appellant Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment: March 26, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Melissa D. Seabolt (Assistant Public Defender), Columbus, Ohio, for
Defendant-Appellant.

Gormley, J.

{¶1} Appellant Alejandro Ramirez was found guilty at a jury trial in Richland

County on a felony drug-related charge. Finding no error in the trial court’s proceedings,

we now affirm.

The Key Facts

{¶2} In May 2024, Ramirez was indicted on one count of aggravated possession

of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree, and he was tried before a jury a few months later.

After the jury found Ramirez guilty on the charge, the trial court imposed an 11-month

prison term.

{¶3} Soon thereafter, Ramirez filed a notice of appeal. New counsel was then

appointed to represent him here.
{¶4} Once the trial-court record for the appeal here had been transmitted,

Ramirez’s appellate counsel filed a brief on Ramirez’s behalf. In that brief, Ramirez’s

counsel, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicated that no

colorable issues exist that might prompt this court to overturn Ramirez’s conviction and

sentence. The appellate lawyer also indicated in the brief that she had provided copies of

it to both Ramirez himself and to the prosecutor. Appellate counsel also moved to

withdraw as counsel in the case.

{¶5} This court then sent a notice to the parties indicating that Ramirez could file

his own appellate brief, and the State was of course given an opportunity to respond to

any such brief and to the Anders brief. No additional briefs beyond the original Anders

brief have been filed here.

Our Review of the Record Finds No Reversible Error in the Trial-Court
Proceedings

{¶6} Under Anders, court-appointed appellate counsel in a criminal case is

permitted to indicate — after the attorney has conscientiously reviewed the full record —

that any possible grounds for an appeal in the case appear to be frivolous. See id. at 744.

When such a brief is filed, Anders instructs counsel to file a brief identifying anything in

the record that might arguably support the appeal. See State v. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696,

¶ 8, fn. 1. The court of appeals should then ensure that the indigent defendant receives a

copy of that brief and should give the defendant an opportunity to raise any arguments

that he or she would like to present in the appeal. Anders at 744. And then finally, the

court itself should fully examine the case record to determine whether the appeal is

frivolous. Id. All of those steps have occurred in this appeal.
{¶7} Ramirez’s counsel in the Anders brief has suggested a potential argument

that might support his appeal: that Ramirez’s conviction was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. We have now examined that issue, and we have also independently

studied the record to see whether we agree with defense counsel’s view that this appeal is

frivolous.

{¶8} “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of

the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” State v. Butler, 2024-Ohio-4651, ¶ 75 (5th

Dist.). “‘The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests

with the knowledge that the [trier of fact] is best able to view the witnesses and observe

their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing

the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” (Bracketed text in original.) State v. Williams,

2024-Ohio-5578, ¶ 61 (5th Dist.), quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 10

Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). “[A]n appellate court will leave the issues of weight and

credibility of the evidence to the factfinder, as long as a rational basis exists in the record

for its decision.” State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-161, ¶ 66 (5th Dist.).

{¶9} Ramirez was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs under R.C.

2925.11. The statute provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a

controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.” R.C. 2925.11(A). The drug

involved was methamphetamine, a schedule II drug, which made the offense a felony of

the fifth degree. R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(a).

{¶10} The State presented three witnesses at the trial. The first witness — Angie

Sams — is a probation officer with the Richland County Adult Probation Department. Ms.

Sams testified that in July 2023 she arrived at an apartment at 127 ½ Sturges Avenue in

Mansfield, Ohio to assist another probation officer who was checking in on one of his
probationers. The individual who answered the door at the residence informed the

probation officers that the probationer was not there, but the tracking of the probationer’s

electronic-monitoring device indicated that she was indeed at the residence. Once the

probation officers were inside, they walked around the residence. Ms. Sams testified that

she observed the probationer coming out of a bedroom where another female was

sleeping. Ms. Sams testified that it appeared that both the probationer and the other

female were under the influence. In the kitchen, Ms. Sams observed a plate on the table

that had a white substance on it, and she also saw a scale and a baggie that contained a

white substance. After observing these items, the probation officers contacted the

Mansfield Police Department.

{¶11} The second witness — John Meyer — is an officer with the Mansfield Police

Department. Officer Meyer testified that he was dispatched to the apartment on Sturges

Avenue to assist the probation officers. Officer Meyer collected the suspected drugs and

paraphernalia inside the apartment, and he delivered those items to a forensic laboratory

for testing. Officer Meyer testified that Ramirez was present in the residence when the

drugs and paraphernalia were collected, and he told jurors that Ramirez admitted to

ownership of the drugs that day. A video from Officer Meyer’s body-worn camera was

played for the jury. In that video, Officer Meyer posed questions to Ramirez and a woman

who was also in the residence, and Ramirez said that the drugs were his.

{¶12} The State’s final witness — Anthony Tambasco — is a forensic scientist and

the director of a forensic laboratory in Mansfield, Ohio. Mr. Tambasco was recognized by

the trial court as an expert in the field of drug analysis. He testified that he had examined

the substance found on the plate collected from the Sturges residence, and he explained
to jurors that his testing of that substance indicated that it was methamphetamine, a

schedule II controlled substance.

{¶13} In support of his argument that his conviction was against the manifest

weight of the evidence, Ramirez contends that the State did not provide any evidence that

he was under the influence. Ramirez points to the testimony of Ms. Sams and Officer

Meyer that the probationer and another female at the residence did appear to be under

the influence. Ramirez also points to some witness testimony indicating that he had been

a guest at the residence and had not been seen in the kitchen where the

methamphetamine was found.

{¶14} The State was of course not required to prove that Ramirez was under the

influence that day. And as the State noted during the trial, Ramirez could have possessed

the drugs even if he had not been in the same room where they were located. Possession

may be either constructive or actual. State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982),

syllabus. “Constructive possession exists when an individual knowingly exercises

dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his

immediate physical possession.” Id. When Ramirez unequivocally told Officer Meyer

that the drugs were his, Ramirez essentially acknowledged that he had exercised

dominion and control over them. No evidence presented during the trial cast doubt on

Ramirez’s statement that the drugs were his.

{¶15} After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the evidence weighs heavily

against a conviction on the charge of aggravated possession of drugs, and nothing in the

record suggests that the trier of fact lost its way or that a manifest miscarriage of justice

has occurred.
{¶16} In the end, our independent review of the record leads us to the same

conclusion as the one voiced in the Anders brief: this appeal is frivolous.

{¶17} For the reasons explained above, we grant defense counsel’s October 30,

2025 motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Richland County. Costs are to be paid by Appellant Alejandro M. Ramirez.

By: Gormley, J.;

King, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.