If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

September 10, 2020

v No. 349104

Wayne Circuit Court

TEMIKO LYNN MCCLINTON, LC No. 19-000199-01-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions of possession with intent to deliver

50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of Oxycodone, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and possession 

of a controlled substance, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(ii). He was sentenced to 51 months to 20 years’

imprisonment for the Oxycodone conviction and 6 months to 2 years’ imprisonment for the 

controlled substance conviction. Finding no error warranting reversal, we affirm. This appeal is 

decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).

I. BASIC FACTS

On May 19, 2015, Michigan State Police Trooper Jack Taeff conducted a traffic stop of a 

vehicle with three occupants for having an obstructed license plate. The smell of marijuana could 

be detected from the vehicle.1 Trooper Taeff removed the driver from the car to conduct a patdown search. He also called for an additional unit, and two other troopers arrived at the scene. 

When defendant, the backseat passenger, was removed for his pat-down search, there appeared to 

be two separate objects near his groin area. The troopers recovered a small bag of marijuana and 

two bags of prescription pills. One bag contained 165 tablets of Alprazolam (commonly known 

as Xanax). The other bag contained 494 blue and green Oxycodone pills. The Oxycodone pills 

were packaged in two separate knotted plastic sandwich bags and weighed over 50 grams. In light 

 

1 At the time of the 2015 traffic stop, the regulation of marijuana differed, but the subsequent 

legalization is not pertinent to this appeal. 
-2-

of his over 18 years of experience, Trooper Taeff opined that even habitual users of drugs did not 

purchase such large quantities of drugs at one time. He further opined that consumption of six to 

ten Oxycodone pills would qualify as a heavy user. 

The vehicle occupants were taken to a police station. Defendant did not give a formal 

written statement to the troopers, but purportedly told them he was merely a user. Defendant was 

an Ohio resident who came to Michigan to purchase the drugs, but was released pending further 

investigation. Apparently, a warrant was mailed to defendant, but he testified that he never 

received it. In November 2018, defendant was in a vehicle that was pulled over for a traffic stop 

in Royal Oak, Michigan. At that time, he was arrested for the outstanding warrant. At trial, 

defendant admitted that he purchased the large quantity of drugs, but asserted that it was merely 

for personal use because of his addiction. When asked about his use, defendant estimated that he 

consumed five to six pills a day, and the 494 Oxycodone pills would last him a couple of weeks, 

not a couple of months. Defendant also asserted that he was addicted to Xanax, but he did not 

delineate the daily amount that he consumed. Thus, defendant testified that he did not have an 

intent to deliver or distribute the drugs to anyone else. He testified that he attended a rehabilitation 

program, was in recovery for the last year, and was pursuing carpentry in trade school. On crossexamination, defendant admitted the quantity of drugs found on his person and that he did not have 

a valid prescription. He also acknowledged that the amount that he claimed to use in two weeks 

did not match the quantity found on his person. Defendant testified that the pills cost $10 each if 

purchased in Ohio, but only $2 or $3 each if purchased in the Detroit area.2 He believed that he 

spent $1,000 to $1,500 total for all of the drugs and did not have cash on his person. 

The trial court concluded that defendant was inconsistent in his testimony regarding his 

addiction and the amount of his consumption. Further, the court noted that defendant came from 

Ohio to purchase the drugs in part because of its availability and the much cheaper cost. The trial 

court found that the amount of Oxycodone that defendant had was far in excess for personal use 

and convicted him of possession with intent to deliver this drug. It also convicted defendant of 

simple possession of the Xanax. 

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant alleges that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of possession with 

intent to deliver Oxycodone because the trial court relied solely on personal belief that the amount

exceeded personal use. We disagree. 

“Criminal defendants do not need to take any special steps to preserve a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence.” People v Cain, 238 Mich App 95, 116-117; 605 NW2d 28 (1999). 

This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v McFarlane, 

 

2 Defendant also presented the testimony of Andre Johnson of the Detroit Recovery Project, who 

testified that he began providing services to defendant in December 2018. When asked to address 

whether a personal user would purchase or have a large quantity of drugs, Johnson testified that, 

“it’s usually instances where you have folks who have the means and the resources and a group of 

peers and they want to party for the next two to three weeks.” Johnson indicated that he 

“occasionally” found a personal user with a large amount. 
-3-

325 Mich App 507, 513; 926 NW2d 339 (2018). It must determine whether, based on the evidence 

presented, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each 

element of the crime charged, and “must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the 

prosecution.” Id. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate 

court does not interfere with the trier of fact’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the 

witnesses or the evidence. People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 582; 831 NW2d 243 (2013). 

To establish the elements of possession with intent to deliver more than 50 but less than 

450 grams of Oxycodone, the prosecutor must prove: (1) the defendant knowingly possessed a 

controlled substance; (2) the defendant intended to deliver this substance to someone else; (3) the 

substance possessed was Oxycodone and the defendant knew it was Oxycodone; and (4) the 

substance was in a mixture that weighed between 50 and 450 grams. People v Crawford, 458 

Mich 376, 389; 582 NW2d 785 (1998); see also M Crim JI 12.3. 

Defendant submits that the trial court improperly found the intent to deliver premised solely 

on the quantity of pills. Possession with intent to deliver may be established by circumstantial 

evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence. People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 

600, 623; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). In the context of determining intent, “minimal circumstantial 

evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind, which can be inferred from all the 

evidence presented.” People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594, 622; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). Actual 

delivery is not required to establish the intent to deliver. Rather, “intent to deliver has been inferred 

from the quantity of narcotics in a defendant’s possession, from the way in which those narcotics 

are packaged, and from other circumstances surrounding the arrest.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 

508, 524; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). 

In the present case, Trooper Taeff testified that defendant was the rear passenger in a 

vehicle pulled over for a traffic stop. Once defendant was removed from the vehicle for a patdown search, he appeared to have packages in his groin area. The troopers recovered bags 

containing marijuana, Xanax, and 494 Oxycodone pills. Trooper Taeff testified that, in light of 

his over 18 years of experience, the quantity of Oxycodone involved did not demonstrate personal 

use, but an intent to deliver or distribute the drug. On the contrary, defendant testified that the 

drugs were only for personal use because of his addiction. He estimated that he consumed five to 

six pills a day, and the supply on his person would last only two weeks. However, a mathematical 

comparison of defendant’s daily use in light of the quantity found on his person indicated a supply 

of at least two months. Defendant also testified that the drug cost $10 per pill if purchased in Ohio, 

but $2 or $3 per pill in the Detroit area. Defendant’s counselor Johnson testified that the quantity 

of drugs “occasionally” would be found on a personal user. 

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the trial judge did not rely merely on the quantity 

recovered and his own personal experience. The evidence at trial revealed that defendant was 

found with a substantial amount of Oxycodone pills hidden in his groin for which he did not have 

a valid prescription. The trooper testified that generally a large quantity of the drug did not reflect 

personal use, but an intent to deliver. Further, defendant admitted that he came to the Detroit area 

to purchase the drug because of the price difference. As noted by the prosecutor, defendant had 

an incentive to purchase Oxycodone in Detroit at $2 or $3 per pill and resale of the drug in Ohio 

at $10 per pill would result in a substantial profit. Additionally, defendant’s counselor testified 

that the large quantity of Oxycodone only “occasionally” reflected personal use. 
-4-

In light of the 494 Oxycodone pills recovered, the pills were not individually packaged, 

and the substantial difference between the purchase price in the Detroit area and Ohio, this 

evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, was sufficient to establish the 

intent to deliver. A rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had 

the intent to deliver the Oxycodone, and accordingly, defendant has not established that the 

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession with intent to deliver. 

Affirmed.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly 

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron