FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2016 CRC-1 000263
MATTHEW J. MALONE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.
Appellant, Randy Shaffer II, appeals from his conviction for
illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the
manufacture of drugs in the Wayne County Court of Common
Pleas. We affirm.
In June of 2016, an investigation into multiple, recent
pseudoephedrine purchases by C.T. and L.D. prompted
authorities to procure a search warrant for the
individuals' residence on Sherwood Drive in Wooster. On
June 25, 2016, the Wayne County Sheriffs Office executed the
search warrant at the suspected methamphetamine lab and
discovered an abundance of items related to the manufacture
of methamphetamine. Four individuals were also inside of the
residence, including Mr. Shaffer.
Mr. Shaffer was charged with illegal assembly or possession
of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, a felony of the
third degree. After a bench trial, Mr. Shaffer was found
guilty of the offense and the trial court sentenced him to
three years in prison.
Mr. Shaffer now appeals from his conviction and raises one
assignment of error for this Court's review.
SHAFFER'S CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY OR POSSESSION
OF CHEMICALS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF DRUGS WAS NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Shaffer argues that his
conviction is based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.
"A sufficiency challenge of a criminal conviction
presents a question of law, which we review de novo."
State v. Spear, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28181,
2017-Ohio-169, ¶ 6, citing State v. Thompkins,78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). "Sufficiency concerns the
burden of production and tests whether the prosecution
presented adequate evidence for the case to go to the
jury." State v. Bressi, 9th Dist. Summit No.
27575, 2016-Ohio-5211, ¶ 25, citing Thompkins
at 386. "The 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., quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. However, "we
do not resolve ...