Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Shaffer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Wayne

January 22, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
RANDY D. SHAFFER II Appellant

         APPEAL 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.

          DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.

         {¶1} 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.

         I.

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} Mr. Shaffer now appeals from his conviction and raises one assignment of error for this Court's review.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

SHAFFER'S CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY OR POSSESSION OF CHEMICALS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF DRUGS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

         {¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Shaffer argues that his conviction is based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.

         {¶6} "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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.