News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Court of Appeals Upholds Muskingum County Convictions and Sentences

ZANESVILLE, OHIO — August 14, 2026 — The Fifth District Court of Appeals has affirmed judgments of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas in two separate criminal cases, rejecting challenges brought by defendants Lindsey Y. Riley and Leeron Mayle.

The decisions are important not simply because the convictions and sentences were upheld, but because they demonstrate the safeguards built into the criminal justice system. In each case, the defendant was represented by counsel, was given the opportunity to present arguments in the trial court, had the right to challenge the resulting judgment on appeal, and received review by a three-judge appellate panel. After examining the facts, the applicable law, and the arguments raised by the defendants, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court.

Muskingum County Prosecutor Ron Welch stated; “These cases illustrate an essential principle: fairness and accountability are not competing goals. A fair process gives every defendant the opportunity to be heard, while also permitting courts to impose meaningful consequences when the evidence and the law justify them.”



STATE v. LINDSEY Y. RILEY

The Riley case arose from two separate encounters involving illegal drugs.

On February 14, 2024, United States Marshals searching for fugitives entered a Zanesville apartment with a resident's permission. Riley and her boyfriend, Benjamin Hanning, were located in an upstairs bedroom where controlled substances and drug paraphernalia were in plain sight. Testing subsequently confirmed the presence of oxycodone, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and alprazolam. Riley was charged with aggravated possession of drugs, possession of a fentanyl-related compound, and illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia.

Riley pleaded not guilty and exercised her right to a bench trial. The State presented testimony from a United States Marshal and a Muskingum County Sheriff's Office detective. Riley also testified in her own defense, contending that the drugs belonged to her boyfriend and that she initially claimed ownership because she feared him. The trial court heard both sides and found Riley guilty.

While that case was pending, Riley was involved in another drug offense. On March 17, 2025, she was encountered outside a drug house at approximately 3:00 a.m. and told an officer that she had outstanding warrants as well as needles and drugs on her person. Officers recovered approximately .99 grams of methamphetamine. Riley later pleaded guilty to the charges arising from that incident.

For the first case, the trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of five to seven-and-one-half years for aggravated possession of drugs, along with concurrent sentences for the fentanyl and paraphernalia offenses. The sentences in the second case were also ordered to run concurrently with the first case.

The Appeal:

Riley challenged both her conviction and aspects of her sentence.

First, Riley argued that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the drugs belonged to her boyfriend. The appellate court carefully considered that argument but explained the distinction between ownership and possession. Ohio law does not require the State to prove that a defendant owns illegal drugs. Constructive possession can exist where a person has the ability to exercise dominion and control over them.

The evidence showed that Riley and Hanning occupied the same bedroom; drug paraphernalia, needles, a pill, white powder and other items were located throughout the room; the items were in close proximity to Riley; and Riley acknowledged that Hanning provided her with drugs. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not lose its way in determining that Riley possessed the drugs.

Riley also challenged the maximum jail sentences imposed for her misdemeanor offenses. The appellate court rejected that argument as well.

Significantly, the sentencing record showed that Riley had previous misdemeanor convictions involving drug instruments and drug paraphernalia, violated bond in the pending case by testing positive for drugs, and committed another criminal offense while the first case remained pending. The appellate court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing the sentences.

The three-judge panel therefore affirmed the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas in its entirety.



STATE v. LEERON MAYLE

The Mayle case involved a series of thefts from vehicles in a Zanesville hotel parking lot during September and October 2025. Mayle and a co-defendant took property from other people's vehicles and were subsequently indicted. Mayle ultimately pleaded guilty to four fifth-degree felonies—three counts of theft and one count of possession of criminal tools—as well as related misdemeanor charges.

The written plea agreement expressly provided that the offenses did not merge and that Mayle agreed to the judicial findings necessary for consecutive sentences. The parties jointly recommended an aggregate 24-month prison term.

The trial judge nevertheless took an additional step before deciding Mayle's sentence. Although Mayle waived a presentence investigation, the court ordered one anyway. The resulting report gave the court additional information concerning Mayle's background and criminal history before sentencing. After reviewing that information, the court imposed 12 months on each of the four felony counts and ordered the terms to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 48 months in prison.

That history is significant to understanding both the fairness of the process and the sentence ultimately imposed.

At sentencing, the court considered Mayle's claim that he was taking responsibility, his drug use, his desire for treatment, and his criminal history. The court also considered restitution. Mayle acknowledged that he had paid none of the approximately $8,100 restitution obligation associated with the present offenses and had paid nothing toward a restitution obligation exceeding $1,100 from an earlier theft case. The trial court further considered his prior convictions for similar conduct involving thefts of tools and other property from vehicles and homes.

The victims in the present case were not merely deprived of replaceable property. The trial court specifically noted that Mayle stole tools from work vehicles—tools the victims needed to earn their livelihoods. The restitution attributable to the crimes exceeded $8,000.

Protecting the Public:

Mayle appealed the maximum and consecutive nature of his sentences. Assistant Prosecutor Joe Palmer again represented the State on appeal, defending the sentencing decision and the findings made by the trial court.

The appellate court found no basis to overturn them.

Ohio law permits consecutive sentences when the required statutory findings are made, including findings addressing protection of the public, punishment of the offender, the seriousness of the resulting harm, and an offender's criminal history.

Here, the trial court expressly found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish Mayle, were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct or the danger he posed, and were supported by the fact that the offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct. The court also considered Mayle's criminal history in determining that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime.

The Fifth District concluded that those findings adequately supported the consecutive sentences and affirmed the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.



FAIR PROCESS AND MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY

These decisions demonstrate what a functioning criminal justice system is supposed to look like.

The defendants were not denied the opportunity to challenge the State. Riley pleaded not guilty, proceeded to trial, testified in her own defense, challenged the evidence against her, challenged her sentences, and then exercised her right to appellate review. Mayle entered a negotiated guilty plea, was represented by counsel at sentencing, had a presentence investigation completed for the court's consideration, was given an opportunity to address sentencing issues, and then exercised his right to appeal.

In both cases, Assistant Prosecutor Joe Palmer presented the State’s position on appeal, while defense counsel was afforded the same opportunity to challenge the trial courts’ decisions. Independent three-judge appellate panels then reviewed the records, the parties’ legal arguments, and the applicable law before affirming the judgments.

That is an important distinction. Accountability is strongest when it is the product of a fair process.

Muskingum County Prosecutor Ron Welch said the decisions demonstrate why the justice system must provide defendants with meaningful rights while remaining equally committed to protecting law-abiding citizens.

“Fairness does not mean the absence of consequences. It means that an accused person receives the opportunity to challenge the evidence, present a defense, be represented by counsel, and ask a higher court to review the result. That happened in these cases. Our Assistant Prosecutor Joe Palmer defended these convictions and sentences on appeal, the defendants’ attorneys presented their challenges, and independent appellate judges reviewed both sides. After that process was completed, the Court of Appeals determined that the convictions and sentences should stand.”

“These decisions also recognize that sentencing is about more than what happened on a single day. Courts are permitted to consider repeated criminal conduct, prior opportunities to change behavior, the harm caused to victims, and the need to protect the public from future crime. When someone continues committing crimes despite prior intervention, the justice system is not required to wait for another victim before imposing a sentence that protects the community.”

The outcomes also illustrate that sentencing decisions are individualized. Riley's sentences were largely ordered to run concurrently, while Mayle received consecutive sentences after the trial court considered his repeated similar theft offenses, unpaid restitution, the impact upon victims who relied upon the stolen tools for their livelihoods, and the statutory findings concerning future public protection.

Different facts produced different sentences, but the same principles governed both cases: due process, consideration of the evidence, application of Ohio law, accountability for criminal conduct, and protection of the public.

“These cases went through the process our Constitution and laws require,” Welch said. “The defendants were heard. Their lawyers were heard. The State was represented by Assistant Prosecutor Joe Palmer. The trial courts made decisions based upon the records before them, and appellate judges independently reviewed those decisions. The result is not only accountability for these defendants—it is greater safety for the people who live, work, raise families, and operate businesses in Muskingum County.”

The Muskingum County Prosecutor's Office will continue to pursue outcomes that are just for victims, faithful to Ohio law, fair to the accused, and protective of the community.

###
Follow the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office on Facebook for the most current and complete information.