[Cite as State v. Shaffer, 2018-Ohio-205.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

RANDY D. SHAFFER II 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 17AP0001 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO 

CASE No. 2016 CRC-1 000263 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: January 22, 2018 

 

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 Sheriff’s 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. 
2 

 

{¶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 evidentiary conflicts or assess the 

credibility of witnesses, because these functions belong to the trier of fact.” State v. Hall, 9th 

Dist. Summit No. 27827, 2017-Ohio-73, ¶ 10. 
3 

 

{¶7} Mr. Shaffer was convicted of illegal use or possession of chemicals for the 

manufacture of drugs under R.C. 2925.041(A), which provides: “No person shall knowingly 

assemble or possess one or more chemicals that may be used to manufacture a controlled 

substance in schedule I or II with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I 

or II * * *.” Moreover, “[t]he assembly or possession of a single chemical that may be used in 

the manufacture of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, with the intent to manufacture a 

controlled substance in either schedule, is sufficient to violate this section.” R.C. 2925.041(B). 

“Methamphetamine is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance and a stimulant under R.C. 

3719.41, Schedule II (C)(2).” State v. Yoakem, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 14AP0016, 2016-Ohio-745, 

¶ 7. “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s 

conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature.” R.C. 

2901.22(B). “‘Possess’ or ‘possession’ means having control over a thing or substance, but may 

not be inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance through ownership or 

occupation of the premises upon which the thing or substance is found.” R.C. 2925.01(K). 

{¶8} Mr. Shaffer argues his conviction is based on insufficient evidence because no 

evidence was presented that, on June 25, 2016, he assembled or possessed any of the 

methamphetamine-related supplies discovered at the residence or that he provided any of the 

supplies to C.T. for the manufacture of methamphetamine. He further argues that no evidence 

was presented to link his purchase of pseudoephedrine on June 24, 2016, to the pseudoephedrine 

that was discovered in the residence on June 25, 2016. Therefore, he argues that his case is 

analogous to State v. Morlock, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26954, 26955, & 26956, 2014-Ohio-4458. 
4 

 

{¶9} In a split decision1, this Court reversed convictions for illegal manufacture of 

drugs and illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs due to 

insufficient evidence in Morlock. Id. at ¶ 28. The testimony presented at trial showed that Mr. 

Morlock had not brought any such chemicals with him to the residence on October 28, 2012, for 

manufacturing methamphetamine, and that the last time he brought such chemicals to the 

residence was two weeks prior to October 28, 2012. Id. at ¶ 26. Although there was testimony 

that Mr. Morlock had brought supplies over for the manufacture of methamphetamine five or six 

times in the prior month, no evidence was presented that the particular chemicals found at the 

residence on October 28, 2012, were ever assembled or possessed by Mr. Morlock. Id. at ¶ 27. 

Accordingly, this Court concluded “[t]here was no evidence that, on or about October 28, 2012, 

Mr. Morlock possessed any chemicals or supplied any chemicals to make methamphetamine to * 

* * anyone at 92 Willard.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 26. 

{¶10} At trial in the case sub judice, the State presented the testimony of two witnesses. 

Jason Waddell, the senior agent in the Medway Drug Enforcement Agency, testified that on June 

25, 2016, Sergeant Joe Copenhaver of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department called him to 

request his services in dismantling a clandestine methamphetamine lab at 636 Sherwood Drive in 

Wooster. Agent Waddell testified that he discovered many items in the residence that were 

 1

 The dissent stated that evidence was presented that Mr. Morlock “would routinely 

provide various ingredients necessary for the production of methamphetamine in exchange for 

some of the finished product.” Morlock at ¶ 32 (Carr, J., dissenting). Mr. Morlock would drop 

off some ingredients and then return to the residence merely hours later to use his share of the 

newly manufactured methamphetamine. Id. On October 28, 2012, Mr. Morlock and three others 

were arrested inside of the residence while preparing to use four lines of methamphetamine that 

were laid out on a speaker before them. Id. Therefore, the dissent concluded that a reasonable 

inference could be drawn that Mr. Morlock had provided ingredients on or about October 28, 

2012, for the most recently manufactured batch of methamphetamine and had returned hours 

later to use his share of the drugs when he was arrested. Id.
5 

 

related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Inside of a closet, he discovered ice packs that 

had been cut open with some of the ammonium nitrate removed. In a bedroom, he discovered 

approximately thirty syringes and a burnt spoon with residue and a cotton swab on top. Inside of 

a “lazy Susan” in the kitchen, he discovered a half-gallon bottle of muriatic acid, measuring 

cups, and several funnels. One of the funnels had a white powder residue on it that was tested on 

litmus paper at the scene and came back as a “strong base,” which Agent Waddell testified is 

“indicative of what we see when a funnel would be used to add sodium hydroxide, a crystal drain 

cleaner type.” On a small table in the kitchen, he discovered several cans of lighter fluid and a 

can of acetone. In an upper kitchen cabinet, he discovered an orange and clear plastic spice 

grinder with a white powder in it. The white powder tested negative for methamphetamine, but 

Agent Waddell testified that these types of grinders are commonly used to grind up 

pseudoephedrine pills in methamphetamine labs. Inside of the kitchen trash can, he discovered 

another can of lighter fluid, an empty 40-count box of pseudoephedrine, and a lithium battery 

that had been cut open with the lithium removed. Inside of two trash cans the basement, he 

discovered another empty can of lighter fluid, several one-liter plastic bottles containing some 

water, a gallon-size Ziploc bag containing empty pseudoephedrine packs, and empty ice pack, 

and a lithium battery that had been cut open with the lithium removed. 

{¶11} Agent Waddell testified that while he took a break outside of the residence, some 

Sheriff’s deputies discovered two sealed buckets in the basement of the residence. They opened 

one up and observed kitty litter inside. Agent Waddell testified that kitty litter is used as an 

odor-absorbing layer in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He went back into the basement 

to further inspect the buckets and he found several sealed plastic bottles containing an off-white 
6 

 

or off-pink sludge with a black chunk of material inside, which he testified is indicative of a onepot methamphetamine lab. 

{¶12} Wayne County Sheriff’s Deputy Paul Gramlich testified that he obtained a search 

warrant for 636 Sherwood Drive to look for items involved in the manufacture of 

methamphetamine and other drug-related items. He also participated in the execution of that 

search warrant as a perimeter unit while the Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”) team 

entered the residence. Four individuals were located inside of the residence when the search 

warrant was executed: Mr. Shaffer, C.T., K.D., and Z.R. The SWAT team reported a strong 

chemical odor coming from inside the residence and identifiable methamphetamine-related items 

located in plain view once they entered the residence. 

{¶13} After Agent Waddell was finished inside, Deputy Gramlich entered the residence 

with Deputy Berkey to collect evidence. Deputy Gramlich testified that they discovered 

hypodermic syringes, an orange pill grinder, a blue plastic container, pH testing strips, a receipt, 

a package of pseudoephedrine, a piece of foil with a pen cylinder on it, a metal spoon with 

residue and a cotton swab on it, a light bulb fashioned into a smoking device, a mirror with razor 

blades, some powder residue, another metal spoon with a cotton swab on it, a receipt for 

pseudoephedrine, gloves and personal protective garments, multiple lottery tickets which he 

testified are commonly used to create bindles for packaging narcotics, two buckets containing 

kitty litter, a dust mask, multiple containers and funnels, a bottle of “stripper,” a Ziploc bag 

containing rolled up coffee filters, a Ziploc bag containing a saturated towel, a Ziploc bag 

containing a white residue, a container with some type of salt in it, a trash can containing “what 

appeared to be meth trash, coffee filters, bottles, things of that nature[,]” a blue bucket containing 

multiple “cooking vessels” in it, a bucket of salt, clear tubing, a bucket of kitty litter, multiple 
7 

 

plastic bottles with the labels removed, and a receipt for acetone. He also found metal fittings 

and a Tennessee driver’s license for L.D. inside of K.D.’s purse. L.D.’s name and license 

number had been associated with recent pseudoephedrine purchases linked to 636 Sherwood 

Drive. 

{¶14} BCI testing revealed trace amounts of methamphetamine on the spoon with cotton 

swab and residue, trace amounts of pseudoephedrine on the pill grinder, and trace amount of 

methamphetamine in the blue container. 

{¶15} Deputy Gramlich spoke to Mr. Shaffer while he was in a police cruiser at the 

scene. Deputy Gramlich testified that he read Mr. Shaffer his rights and that Mr. Shaffer 

indicated he understood those rights and agreed to speak to the deputy. Mr. Shaffer told the 

deputy that C.T. cooked methamphetamine in the residence and “on at least one occasion he had 

purchased a box of pseudoephedrine for [C.T.] for that purpose.” Mr. Shaffer told the deputy 

“[h]e believed that there may be a plate inside the home that [C.T.] had used for drying the 

methamphetamine on[,]” but he was not sure. He also told the deputy that he was at the 

residence “hanging out” with Z.R. and that he had used methamphetamine inside of the 

residence. 

{¶16} Deputy Gramlich’s body camera recorded video of his conversation with Mr. 

Shaffer in the police cruiser, which was entered into evidence at trial. The body camera video 

corroborates the deputy’s testimony. In the video, Mr. Shaffer admits to buying one “box” for 

C.T. Deputy Gramlich testified that the terms “box” or “boxes” are commonly used to refer to 

pseudoephedrine blister pack boxes. Mr. Shaffer admits in the video that while at the residence, 

he “got high a little bit.” When asked if he has seen C.T. “cooking off bottles or drying the 

stuff[,]” Mr. Shaffer responds, “No, I don’t, I don’t, actually yeah, I’ve seen drying plates in the 
8 

 

kitchen.” When questioned further about the use of the plates, the location of C.T.’s “stuff,” and 

how he obtains “it” from C.T., Mr. Shaffer responds, “I don’t think I, I don’t even care about the 

shit. I don’t fucking cook it and I don’t like it. I know they cook it * * *.” The deputy inquires 

as to what type of pseudoephedrine box Mr. Shaffer purchased, and Mr. Shaffer appears unsure 

of which type he purchased. As the deputy questions Mr. Shaffer further regarding his 

pseudoephedrine purchase, he asks, “Did he drive you up there * * *?” Mr. Shaffer responds, 

“No, she’s been driving me for it * * *.” The deputy asks where L.D. is at and Mr. Shaffer 

responds, “I don’t know who that is.” 

{¶17} Deputy Gramlich spoke to Mr. Shaffer again at the Wayne County Jail. The 

deputy’s body camera recorded video of the conversation, which was entered into evidence at 

trial. In the video, the deputy reads Mr. Shaffer a copy of the search warrant and briefly explains 

the illegal assembly charge. He informs Mr. Shaffer that he knows Mr. Shaffer has purchased 

boxes for “them” at least twice. Mr. Shaffer then admits to the deputy that “[he] tried to get one 

Thursday and [he] got one the other night.” 

{¶18} Ohio law prohibits individuals without a valid prescription for pseudoephedrine 

from purchasing “[t]hree and six tenths grams within a period of a single day [or n]ine grams 

within a period of thirty consecutive days.” R.C. 2925.56(A)(1). The National Precursor Log 

Exchange (“NPLEx”) is an “electronic system for tracking sales of pseudoephedrine products 

and ephedrine products on a national basis * * *.” R.C. 3715.05(A)(6). The NPLEx system will 

notify a retailer or distributor with a “stop-sale alert” to block any attempted purchase of 

pseudoephedrine if completion of the sale would violate the purchase limits set forth in R.C. 

2925.56(A)(1) or federal law. R.C. 3715.05(A)(13); R.C. 3715.052(B)(1). Deputy Gramlich 

testified as to his review and investigation of the NPLEx reports detailing the successful 
9 

 

purchases and attempted or blocked purchases made by Mr. Shaffer, C.T., K.D., and L.D. Those 

four NPLEx reports, which corroborate the deputy’s testimony as to their contents, were all 

entered into evidence at trial. 

{¶19} The NPLEx reports indicate that, on June 22, 2016, Mr. Shaffer attempted to buy 

pseudoephedrine at the Wooster Walmart at 9:51 A.M., but the purchase was blocked. Six 

minutes later, at 9:57 A.M., C.T. purchased pseudoephedrine at the same store. Five minutes 

later, at 10:02 A.M., K.D. attempted to purchase pseudoephedrine at the same store, but the 

purchase was blocked. Six minutes later, at 10:08 A.M., someone using L.D.’s identification 

attempted to purchase pseudoephedrine at the same store, but the purchase was blocked. Deputy 

Gramlich testified that it was later determined Z.R. had attempted to use L.D.’s identification for 

that purchase. 

{¶20} The NPLEx reports also indicate that, on June 24, 2016, Mr. Shaffer purchased 

pseudoephedrine at the Massillon Rite Aid at 8:21 P.M. Nine minutes later, at 8:30 P.M., 

someone using L.D.’s identification purchased pseudoephedrine at the same store. Thirty-six 

minutes later, at 9:06 P.M., K.D. purchased pseudoephedrine at the Orrville Rite Aid. Six 

minutes later, at 9:12 P.M., C.T. attempted to purchase pseudoephedrine at the same store, but 

the purchase was blocked. 

{¶21} As to Mr. Shaffer’s sufficiency arguments, we first note that he erroneously refers 

to his indictment as alleging he committed this offense “on June 25, 2016.” The indictment 

actually alleges that Mr. Shaffer committed this crime “on or about June 25, 2016.” (Emphasis 

added.) This Court disagrees with Mr. Shaffer’s series of related arguments that no evidence 

was presented to: (1) prove that he assembled or possessed any of the methamphetamine-related 

supplies discovered at the residence; (2) prove that he provided any of the supplies to C.T. for 
10 

 

the manufacture of methamphetamine; or (3) link his purchase of pseudoephedrine on June 24, 

2016, to the pseudoephedrine that was discovered in the residence on June 25, 2016. Deputy 

Gramlich testified, and his body camera video confirmed, that Mr. Shaffer admitted to buying 

one box of pseudoephedrine for C.T., admitted that he knew the others cooked 

methamphetamine, had observed some drying plates in the kitchen, and admitted to getting high 

in the residence. In the deputy’s body camera video from the interview at the Wayne County 

Jail, Mr. Shaffer admits that he unsuccessfully attempted to purchase a box of pseudoephedrine 

on Thursday, but was successful in purchasing a box of pseudoephedrine on another night. Mr. 

Shaffer’s NPLEx report indicates that he unsuccessfully attempted to buy pseudoephedrine at the 

Wooster Walmart on June 22, 2016, but successfully purchased a 40-count box of Rite Aid 

Ibuprofen Cold & Sinus containing pseudoephedrine at the Massillon Rite Aid on June 24, 2016. 

The search warrant was executed the very next day on June 25, 2016, and Agent Waddell 

testified that he found an empty 40-count box of pseudoephedrine inside of the kitchen trash can 

along with an overwhelming amount of items related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

The NPLEx reports further indicate that the individuals who were present when the search 

warrant was executed, including Mr. Shaffer, had very recently been purchasing or attempting to 

purchase pseudoephedrine products in the same stores, on the same days, and around the same 

times. 

{¶22} We also disagree with Mr. Shaffer’s argument that his case is analogous to the 

Morlock case and instead conclude that Morlock is distinguishable from the instant case. In 

Morlock, this Court refrained from concluding that Mr. Morlock’s actions performed two weeks 

prior to October 28, 2012, were committed “on or about October 28, 2012[,]” as stated in the 

indictment. See Morlock, 2014-Ohio-4458, at ¶ 26. Here, Mr. Shaffer admitted to buying 
11 

 

pseudoephedrine for C.T. and his NPLEx report confirmed the purchase as being made on June 

24, 2016, only one day prior to the execution of the search warrant, which is sufficient to satisfy 

the indictment’s “on or about June 25, 2016” language. See State v. Forney, 9th Dist. Summit 

No. 24361, 2009-Ohio-2999, ¶ 10 (stating “[t]he State is only required to prove that the offense 

occurred reasonably near the date specified in the indictment” in a case where the indictment 

alleged the offense took place “on or about” a particular date.). In Morlock, no evidence was 

presented that Mr. Morlock assembled or possessed the particular chemicals found at the 

residence on October 28, 2012. Id. at ¶ 27. However, in the case sub judice, Mr. Shaffer 

admitted to recently buying pseudoephedrine for C.T., whom he knew was manufacturing 

methamphetamine. Mr. Shaffer purchased a 40-count box of a pseudoephedrine product on June 

24, 2016, and testimony at trial established that an empty 40-count box of pseudoephedrine was 

found inside of the kitchen trash can among other methamphetamine-related items on June 25, 

2016. Thus, we cannot conclude that the fact pattern in Morlock is comparable to the fact pattern 

in Mr. Shaffer’s case. 

{¶23} After reviewing the evidence contained in the record in a light most favorable to 

the prosecution, we conclude that the State satisfied its burden of production and presented 

sufficient evidence, if believed, from which a rational trier of fact could have concluded that, on 

or about June 25, 2016, Mr. Shaffer knowingly assembled or possessed pseudoephedrine pills 

with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. 

{¶24} Mr. Shaffer’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶25} Mr. Shaffer’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 
12 

 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 THOMAS A. TEODOSIO 

 FOR THE COURT 

SCHAFER, P. J. 

CARR, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

MATTHEW J. MALONE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

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

Attorney, for Appellee.