Court Opinion

ID: 9961380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 16:13:54.400881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:41.234354
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1473.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                                No. 113035
                 v.                               :

GWENETTA SMITH,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND VACATED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 18, 2024

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-23-677865-B

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Anjali Kanwar, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Jones Day and Joseph Shell, for appellant.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

                Defendant-appellant Gwenetta Smith (“Ms. Smith”) appeals judgments

from the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, finding her guilty of drug

possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and possession of criminal tools in
violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment

of the trial court and vacate the convictions.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Ms. Smith, who is married to Frederick Johnson (“Johnson”), resided

at a home on Eastwood Boulevard in Garfield Heights, Ohio, with their children. 1

On November 24, 2020, law enforcement executed a search warrant at their

residence at around 6:00 a.m. The basis for the search was a wiretap implicating

two individuals unrelated to Ms. Smith. The individuals, Myron Smith and Larry

Lawson, were heard by law enforcement discussing various aspects of drug

transactions.2   Detectives believed that a vehicle registered to Ms. Smith was

observed being driven by Myron Smith during one of these drug transactions.

Because the vehicle was registered at the Eastwood address, law enforcement

obtained a warrant to search Ms. Smith and Johnson’s home.

             Both Ms. Smith and Johnson were present and detained in the living

room while law enforcement executed the search. The search warrant covered a

search of the residence only.      However, while law enforcement searched the

      1 Neither Johnson nor Ms. Smith testified at trial.
                                                        Defense counsel acknowledged
that Smith and Johnson were married, but had different last names. (Tr. 9.)

      2  The South East Area Law Enforcement (“S.E.A.L.E.”) intercepted conversations
between two other individuals, Myron Smith (no relation to Ms. Smith) and Larry
Lawson. (Trial tr. 113:16–115:1.) Neither lived at the subject residence. Police observed
Myron Smith drive a red Durango (Trial tr. 138:19–23), registered to Ms. Smith, at her
father’s Felch Street address, not where S.E.A.L.E. raided. (Trial tr. 69:19-23, 138:23–
139:1, 165:6–7.)
residence, officers physically searched Johnson and discovered approximately

$2,158 in cash on his person.

            Ms. Smith was indicted on January 20, 2023, for drug trafficking in

violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) (Count 1), drug possession in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A) (Count 2), and possessing criminal tools under R.C. 2923.24(A)

(Count 3), all with forfeiture specifications. The charges stemmed from the fruits of

a search warrant executed on November 24, 2020. There was no evidence that Ms.

Smith was observed in possession of illegal drugs nor evidence of Ms. Smith’s

presence during surveillance of any controlled buys involving the Durango.

Additionally, the search warrant did not name Ms. Smith nor Johnson as subjects of

surveillance.

      Q. So we’re talking about a Durango, and tell me what, if anything, did
      you observe or were you aware of anything Ms. Smith did in
      furtherance of a drug conspiracy that was alleged in Federal court?

      A. That I don’t know. I wasn’t involved in —

      Q. She was not a target, was she?

      A. No. I don’t believe she was charged in Federal court.

                Law enforcement did not arrest Ms. Smith at the conclusion of the

search, nor did they remove marijuana containers that they believed contained legal

marijuana (Tr. 48). Ms. Smith was indicted approximately three years later. She

pleaded not guilty, and the matter was scheduled for trial. During plea negotiations,

Ms. Smith was offered intervention in lieu of conviction (“I.L.C.”), which would have

held the convictions of all three counts in abeyance pending Ms. Smith’s successful
completion of I.L.C. conditions.3 Ms. Smith declined the plea offer and waived a

jury trial. The bench trial commenced on May 24, 2023.

             The trial court subsequently found Ms. Smith not guilty of Count 1 but

guilty of Count 2, drug possession, and Count 3, possession of criminal tools; both

felonies of the fifth degree. Ms. Smith was sentenced to 12 months of community

control supervision. On July 28, 2023, Ms. Smith timely filed a notice of appeal and

raised the following assignments of error:

                          Assignment of Error 1

      The trial court erred in denying Ms. Smith’s motion for a judgment of
      acquittal under Crim. R. 29 regarding counts 2 and 3, because the state
      failed to offer sufficient evidence to support convictions of drug
      possession or possession of criminal tools.

                          Assignment of Error 2

      The trial court’s findings of guilt on counts 2 and 3 were against the
      manifest weight of the evidence.

                             Law and Analysis

             In her first assignment of error, Ms. Smith argues the state failed to

present evidence sufficient to support convictions of drug possession or possession

of criminal tools.

             Under Crim.R. 29(A), a trial court must enter a judgment of acquittal

of an offense if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense.

State v. Tyler, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99402, 2013-Ohio-5242, ¶ 12.

      3 Ms. Smith’s compliance with I.L.C. conditions would have resulted in the
dismissal of the convictions after 12 months.
             A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is a question of law reviewed

de novo. State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111694, 2023-Ohio-928, ¶ 47. An

appellate court must determine whether, after reviewing the trial evidence in the

light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could find the essential

elements of the crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Leonard, 104

Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 77, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). The reviewing court must reverse a conviction if

it concludes that the state has failed to meet its burden of production at trial. State

v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98245, 2013-Ohio-575, ¶ 37; State v. Hunter,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86048, 2006-Ohio-20, ¶ 41, citing State v. Thompkins, 78

Ohio St.3d 380, 390, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

              On the other hand, a manifest weight challenge considers whether

the prosecution has met its burden of persuasion. State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d

79, 80, 434 N.E.2d 1356 (1982). The reviewing court must reverse the conviction

and order a new trial in those exceptional cases if, after thoroughly reviewing the

entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considering the

credibility of witnesses, and determining whether, in resolving conflicts in the

evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost their way and created a manifest miscarriage of

justice. State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 168,

citing Thompkins at 387, citing State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485

N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
             Ms. Smith was convicted of drug possession and possession of

criminal tools. A conviction of drug possession under R.C. 2925.11(A) requires the

state to prove that the person knowingly obtained, possessed, or used a controlled

substance or a controlled substance analog.

              A conviction of possession of criminal tools under R.C. 2923.24(A)

requires a person to possess or have control of any substance, device, instrument, or

article with the purpose of using it criminally. The state must prove possession or

control of the device with intent to use it criminally. State v. Oliver, 31 Ohio App.3d

100, 104, 508 N.E.2d 1048 (11th Dist.1987); R.C. 2923.24; State v. Richardson, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71626, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 5101 (Nov. 13, 1997). Actual

possession denotes ownership or direct physical control. In contrast, constructive

possession occurs when an individual knowingly exercises dominion and control

over an object despite it not being immediately within the individual’s

possession. See State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 434 N.E.2d 1362 (1982).

              It is well settled that possession may be either constructive or actual.

State v. Natale, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95278, 2011-Ohio-3974, ¶ 12. Both

constructive knowledge and possession may be established solely through

circumstantial evidence. State v. Haynes, 25 Ohio St.2d 264, 267 N.E.2d 787 (1971);

State v. Trembly, 37 Ohio App.3d 134, 738 N.E.2d 93 (8th Dist.2000); Natale at

¶ 12. However, “constructive possession 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). See State v. Shary, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109487, 2021-Ohio-3604, ¶ 45 (“Knowledge of an illegal object

on one’s property is sufficient to show constructive knowledge as long as the person

is conscious of the object’s presence.”) Id. ¶ 46. “A person has knowledge of

circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.” Tyler,

2013-Ohio-5242, at ¶ 15; R.C. 2901.22(B).

               As a preliminary matter, we note that marijuana and suspected

criminal tools were found in two primary locations within the residence during the

execution of the search warrant. The first main search area included the bedrooms,

living room, kitchen, and Johnson’s person (collectively “upstairs”). The upstairs

search resulted in the discovery of the following: a marijuana bag4 from a legal

dispensary, a scale, food storage bags, a legal dispensary container used for

marijuana packaging, and a gun in a top cabinet in the kitchen.5 A gun, ammunition,

and food saver bags were located in a bedroom; and in the living room, detectives

discovered $2,158 on Johnson’s person, two cell phones, and miscellaneous cards.

      4 Johnson possessed a valid medical marijuana license.  There is no evidence
identifying the quantity of suspected marijuana in the bag found upstairs and the
marijuana found in the basement.

      5 There were inconsistencies regarding the evidence found upstairs. During closing

arguments and in its brief, the state indicated the gun was discovered “in a cabinet in the
kitchen, sitting on top of a box.” (Tr. 151.) However, the inventory list, marked state’s
exhibit No. 32, indicated that the firearm was located in the “SE bedroom.” Furthermore,
the inventory states that a scale was found in the kitchen and in the basement. However,
the photos, testimony and exhibits identified only one scale, found in the basement.
              The second area where contraband was discovered was in a “barber’s

station” set up in the basement.6 During the search of the “barber’s station” area,

detectives discovered a duffle bag containing two gallon-sized Ziploc bags of

marijuana. (State’s exhibit No. 18, tr. 40.)

              Law enforcement also located a scale, guns, a measuring cup, a

vacuum sealer, $5,000 cash, and paperwork belonging to Johnson. Detective Griffis

was unsure where the bag labeled “Terrasana,”7 a legal dispensary, containing

suspected marijuana, was actually found. (State’s exhibit No. 20, tr. 40.)

      Question: Exhibit 20?

      Answer: It’s another picture of I believe the Terrasana bag. It’s very
      common with ─ I believe it’s a marijuana dispensary. I believe it
      contained marijuana. I believe that was in the kitchen, I’m not a
      hundred percent sure though.

(Tr. 40.)

              Johnson held a medical marijuana license, which permitted him to

possess legal marijuana for individual use. Although some marijuana was found

upstairs, a large quantity of marijuana was found in a bag in the basement.

Therefore, the two issues in this case are whether there is evidence that Ms. Smith

had knowledge that the drugs and suspected criminal tools found upstairs were

      6 The basement consisted of two separate sections:  a barber shop section where
Johnson worked and a laundry section that housed a sink, clothes washer, and dryer.

      7 There was testimony that detectives found a plastic jar that contained 2.83 grams

of marijuana from Terrasana Dispensary during the search. (Tr. 77-78.)
illegal and whether there was sufficient evidence that Ms. Smith had knowledge of

the illegal drugs and contraband discovered in the “barber section” in the basement.

                 Ms. Smith argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her

convictions because she was not near illegal controlled substances when the search

was executed; Johnson possessed a license to purchase marijuana legally; and there

was no evidence that Ms. Smith knew that the drugs found upstairs were not legal.

Furthermore, Ms. Smith alleges the state offered no evidence associating her with

illegal drugs.

                 Regarding the drugs and criminal tools found in the basement, Ms.

Smith argues that there was insufficient evidence that she had knowledge of the

drugs and contraband in the basement. Additionally, Ms. Smith claims there was

no evidence that she could exercise dominion or control over the evidence found in

plain view in Johnson’s “barber section” of the basement or the black duffle bag that

contained the largest quantity of marijuana. Ms. Smith offers State v. Slade in

support of her claim that the state offered insufficient evidence that she knew there

were illegal drugs and criminal tools in the home or that she could exercise dominion

or control over them. State v. Slade, 145 Ohio App.3d 241, 243-244, 762 N.E.2d 451

(8th Dist.2001).

                 In Slade, we reversed the trial court after a careful review of the facts

and surrounding circumstances revealed that there was insufficient evidence of

constructive possession. Law enforcement observed a drug transaction at the home

Slade shared with her boyfriend. Slade was not home when detectives observed a
“controlled buy” at the residence. After executing a search warrant, law enforcement

found drugs under a desk in an office in the home. There was no evidence of Slade’s

personal property in the office or that she had been seen with the bag containing the

drugs, and her mere presence in the home was insufficient to support a conviction

for constructive possession of drugs.

                The state points to the following circumstantial evidence as sufficient

to demonstrate Ms. Smith constructively possessed a controlled substance and

criminal tools: 1) Ms. Smith’s status as an owner of the residence and a household

member; 2) her proximity to contraband that was in plain view; and 3) Mr. Smith’s

intimate relationship with Johnson. The state offers two cases to support its

argument that constructive possession of controlled substances is properly imputed

to Ms. Smith.

                First, the state relies on State v. Paige, which held that the discovery

of readily accessible drugs in proximity to an individual was sufficient circumstantial

evidence that the individual was in constructive possession of the drugs. State v.

Paige, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97939, 2012-Ohio-5727, ¶ 13, citing State v.

Pavlick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81925, 2003-Ohio-6632, ¶ 17.

                Additionally, the state cited State v. Richardson to support its

argument that Ms. Smith’s intimate relationship with Johnson was circumstantial

evidence of her knowledge of illegal drugs found during the search. In Richardson,

we determined there was sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession

because of the appellant’s intimate relationship with a target of the investigation;
readily usable cocaine and paraphernalia were found in plain view all over the

residence; and the appellant’s proximity to the illegal drugs and contraband during

the search. Richardson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71626, at 11. However, we find the

facts and circumstances in the current case inapposite.

              The record before us fails to demonstrate that there were readily

usable, illegal drugs or criminal tools found in plain view. Furthermore, the state’s

reliance on Richardson to infer constructive possession based on Ms. Smith’s

relationship with Johnson is unsubstantiated. In Richardson, it was undisputed

that the appellant was dating the target of the investigation. However, in this case,

the state’s assertion that Ms. Smith was intimately involved with an individual target

of the investigation is not supported by the record. The targeted individuals were

Myron Smith and Larry Lawson, not Johnson.

              Moreover, Ms. Smith’s mere presence was the only association

between her and the marijuana and criminal tools found in the home.

      Question: Is there any evidence whatsoever beyond the fact that there
      was marijuana — not plural. This is not drugs. Marijuana. Is there any
      evidence that you are aware of that associates Ms. Smith in any way
      with the marijuana?

      Detective Stanton: Other than the — no, there’s no other — nothing I’m
      aware of that associates her with the marijuana, other than her
      presence. Yes, that’s it.

(Tr. 130, 13:20.)

              While Ms. Smith was present during the search of the home, she was

not present during surveillance of a controlled buy, involving the Durango.
Detective Stanton testified that he was aware of no evidence that Ms. Smith violated

any relevant laws.

         Question: At any time, other than a listing of a vehicle, I think a Dodge
         Durango, a listing, a registration to Smith, was — is there — are you
         aware of any evidence that Ms. Smith violated any relevant laws?

         Detective Stanton: No.

(Tr. 129, 16:20.)

                Similarly, the state’s argument that the record supports Ms. Smith’s

conviction of possession of criminal tools is unpersuasive. The state argued in its

brief:

         Appellant had full access and control of the entire premises. Moreover,
         detective testimony also revealed that the marijuana and criminal tools
         were out in the open, in plain view.

(State’s Brief 11.)

                 Detectives testified that two cell phones, food storage materials, guns,

ammunition, scales, and money discovered on Johnson’s person were intended to

be used for a criminal purpose. Because of the ubiquitous nature of cell phones,

possession of two cell phones, without more, fails to prove Ms. Smith used or

intended to use the phones for a criminal purpose. Smith and Johnson were

detained in the living room during the search. We cannot say that any reasonable

person could find that two cell phones being in the proximity of two individuals

temporarily detained by law enforcement is alone sufficient evidence of a criminal

purpose. Speculative evidence is not sufficient to establish that the accused had

possession of the controlled substances. There is no evidence in the record that
Smith intended to use the phones or “miscellaneous cards”8 for an illegal purpose.

Similarly, there was no evidence that Ms. Smith was aware of the money discovered

during the search of Johnson’s person or that he secured the money by illegal means.

                 The state asks this court to infer that Ms. Smith had knowledge of the

illegal marijuana and suspected criminal tools found upstairs merely because she

lived in and owned the residence. However, R.C. 2925.11 explicitly excludes mere

proximity to the drugs or ownership of the residence as a sole basis for establishing

constructive possession of controlled substances. “Constructive possession is the

determination that the defendant had knowledge of the item purportedly

possessed.” See State v. Alexander, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90509, 2009-Ohio-597,

¶ 24; State v. Voll, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-12-04, 2012-Ohio-3900, ¶ 19.

                The state conceded that Johnson held a patient’s medical marijuana

license before the search warrant was executed. (Defense Ex. E). The kitchen

cabinet where the bag was found contained paperwork belonging only to Johnson.

After reviewing the evidence found upstairs, in a light most favorable to the state,

we could reasonably infer that Ms. Smith knew that there was marijuana in the

kitchen. Notably, given Johnson’s marijuana license, there is no evidence that the

marijuana found in the kitchen was illegal, nor does the record support an inference

that Ms. Smith knew it was illegal. In fact, both Detectives Griffis and Stanton

testified that the package branding, Terrasana, is a legal marijuana dispensary

         8 The record does not provide details regarding the nature of the miscellaneous

cards.
located in Cuyahoga County. Moreover, there is no evidence of the quantity of

marijuana found upstairs, that it exceeded a quantity permissible for personal use,

or that it came from anywhere other than Terrasana.

             The state essentially asks this court to infer knowledge of illegal

marijuana found in plain view when a household member is legally prescribed the

drug based on their ownership of the residence. We note that there are many law-

abiding citizens who store legal prescription medications that also happen to be

controlled substances in homes they share with others. “Criminal convictions

cannot rest upon mere speculation; the state must establish the guilt of the accused

by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Smith, 39 Ohio App.2d 190, 196, 316

N.E.2d 902 (1st Dist.1974).

              Moreover, appellate courts have long exercised caution when

inferring constructive possession of controlled substances found in shared

premises. See State v. Pumpelly, 77 Ohio App.3d 470, 602 N.E.2d 714 (12th

Dist.1991); State v. Swalley, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2010-A-0008, 2011-Ohio-

2092, ¶ 61. In the present case, there is no evidence that Ms. Smith had knowledge,

constructive or actual, that the controlled substances found upstairs were illegal or

that any of the suspected criminal tools were intended for a criminal purpose.

               The remaining controlled substances and suspected criminal tools

were found in the basement. The state argues in its brief that there was nothing

separating the two sides of the basement. (State’s Brief 11.) However, this claim is

not supported by the record. The basement consisted of two separate sides. One
side contained a laundry area with a clothes washer, dryer, and sink. The other side

housed a “barber’s section area.” The record reveals that Johnson was a barber and

that he used the barbershop area. The state offered circumstantial evidence that the

bag containing illegal quantities of marijuana belonged to him. There was mail

bearing only Johnson’s name in the duffle bag and no evidence that Ms. Smith had

ready access to the barbershop area. There was no evidence that she had ever been

in the barber’s station area of the basement. Consequently, we find Ms. Smith’s

argument persuasive.

              After careful consideration of the entire record and surrounding facts

and circumstances, we find that the state failed to offer sufficient evidence that Ms.

Smith knew there was illegal marijuana or criminal tools in the residence. (State’s

exhibit No. 22.)

              When weighing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state,

reasonable minds could not find, beyond a reasonable doubt, Ms. Smith guilty of

each element of possession of illegal drugs or criminal tools. Accordingly, Ms.

Smith’s first assignment of error is sustained.

              We find that Ms. Smith’s first assignment of error is dispositive;

therefore, her second assignment of error is moot, and we decline to address it.

              Judgment is reversed. Ms. Smith’s convictions of possession of drugs

in Count 2 and possession of criminal tools in Count 3 are vacated.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., CONCURS;
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., DISSENTING:

              I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that there is

insufficient evidence to support Smith’s convictions for drug possession and

possession of criminal tools.

              The majority concludes “[t]he record before us fails to demonstrate

that there were readily usable, illegal drugs or criminal tools in plain view.”

However, the investigative officers who conducted the search found marijuana,

packaging materials, and a scale in plain view on a counter in the kitchen, a common

area of the house. (See state’s exhibit Nos. 22 and 32, tr. 47 and 91.) They also found

a large quantity of marijuana, packaging materials, a scale, cash, firearms, and

ammunition in the basement. (See state’s exhibit No. 32, tr. 38.) Therefore, there

is undeniable evidence that there were drugs and criminal tools in plain view

throughout the house at the time of the search at which Smith was present.
               The majority nevertheless maintains there is no evidence that Smith

knew the drugs were illegal because Johnson had a medical marijuana license.

However, Officer Michael Griffis (“Officer Griffis”), the Solon police officer assigned

to the S.E.A.L.E. Narcotics Task Force who participated in the execution of the

search warrant, identified the packaging material found in the house as Shield N

Seal, a food saver type bag “commonly used for the packaging of marijuana.” (Tr.

41.) A photograph shows Shield N Seal bagging material next to a bag of marijuana

on the counter in the kitchen. (See state’s exhibit No. 22.) These are not items that

a medical-marijuana patient uses for treatment purposes; they are evidence of drug

trafficking. Indeed, Officer Griffis testified that there was marijuana throughout the

home in amounts “far more than personal use” and that, under those circumstances,

Smith “would be well aware of what was going on.” (Tr. 70-71.)

              Furthermore, police determined, prior to the search, that a red Dodge

Durango was involved in suspected drug trafficking. (Tr. 132.) The Durango was

registered to Smith. (Tr. 132.) While conducting surveillance, police repeatedly

observed the Durango at the Eastwood address. (Tr. 131-132.) That the Durango

was used in drug trafficking, by itself, does not conclusively establish that Smith was

aware of the drug activity. However, the use of Smith’s vehicle in drug activity and

its consistent presence at the house provides additional circumstantial evidence that

she was aware of the activity, and the fact that neither she nor Johnson were the

original targets of the investigation is irrelevant to that issue.
              In sum, the police found drugs, firearms, cash, and drug

paraphernalia in plain view throughout the Eastwood home. The quantity of drugs

was more than one would possess for personal or medicinal use, and the drugs were

found with packaging materials typically used for drug trafficking. Police repeatedly

observed a vehicle, registered to Smith, that was involved in suspected drug activity

at the Eastwood address. Therefore, I would find there is sufficient evidence in the

record to support Smith’s convictions. And because the evidence is competent and

credible and no contradictory evidence was presented, I would also find that the

convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.