[Cite as State v. Foughty, 2013-Ohio-2297.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs- :
:
RICKY W. FOUGHTY : Case No. 12-CA-45
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2012-CR-0156
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 3, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CRYSTAL A. BENNETT THOMAS S. GORDON
239 West Main Street P.O. Box 314
Suite 101 Pickerington, OH 43147
Lancaster, OH 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-45 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On March 23, 2012, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted appellant,
Ricky Foughty, on one count of illegal manufacture of controlled substance
(methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.04 and one count of illegal assembly or
possession of chemicals used to manufacture controlled substance (methamphetamine)
with intent to manufacture controlled substance in violation of R.C. 2925.041.
{¶2} A jury trial commenced on June 5, 2012. The jury found appellant guilty of
complicity for both counts. By entry filed July 24, 2012, the trial court found the offenses
to be allied offenses. The state elected to have appellant sentenced on the complicity
of the illegal manufacture of controlled substance (methamphetamine) count. By
judgment entry filed August 6, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to three years in
prison.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE."
I
{¶5} Appellant claims his convictions were against the manifest weight and
sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶6} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-45 3
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "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." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). On
review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and
created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and
a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983), 175. See also, State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. The granting of a new trial "should be
exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶7} Appellant was convicted of complicity in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2)
("[n]o person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of an
offense, shall***[a]id or abet another in committing the offense") of the illegal
manufacture of controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A)
("[n]o person shall knowingly cultivate marihuana or knowingly manufacture or
otherwise engage in any part of the production of a controlled substance") and of the
illegal assembly or possession of chemicals used to manufacture controlled substance
(methamphetamine) with intent to manufacture controlled substance in violation of R.C.
2925.041(A) ("[n]o 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
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-45 4
intent to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II in violation of section
2925.04 of the Revised Code").
{¶8} Appellant argues there was no evidence that he assisted another in
possessing the pills necessary to manufacture methamphetamine, that he possessed or
assisted another in possessing any other items necessary for the manufacture of
methamphetamine, or that he helped another manufacture methamphetamine.
{¶9} On March 16, 2012, police officers were dispatched to a residence based
on an anonymous tip that methamphetamine was being produced therein. T. at 255,
291-292. Appellant opened the door and permitted the officers to enter. T. at 256-257,
298, 300, 303. He explained that he rented a room in the residence. T. at 164-165,
196, 302. The officers informed appellant they were looking for an individual named
"Chastity" who was allegedly manufacturing methamphetamine. T. at 258. Appellant
went to his room and told Chastity overly loud to get dressed because the police wanted
to talk to her. T. at 259-260, 304-305. Chastity came out and then went back to the
room to retrieve her identification. T. at 260-261, 306. Upon entering appellant's room,
the officers were overcome by smoke and a chemical smell. T. at 261, 307-308. The
responding officers and the detectives that arrived on the scene found materials in the
room used to make methamphetamine. T. at 146-152, 166-167, 172-173, 176-181,
233-235, 262-263, 309-310, 459-461, 466-467; State's Exhibits 4, 6-8, and 25.
{¶10} Chasity Perkins, appellant's co-defendant, admitted she knew how to
"cook" methamphetamine and was "a good meth cooker." T. at 331-332. She testified
that appellant picked her up and brought her to his room to correct a batch of
methamphetamine that was "messed up." T. at 334-336. The only items she supplied
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-45 5
were some jars, tubing, and wire cutters. T. at 336. She testified appellant participated
in manufacturing the methamphetamine and "burped" the bottles. T. at 347, 357, 385-
386. Appellant and an individual named "Louie" provided the Sudafed for her to cook
the methamphetamine. T. at 355. Many items needed to cook methamphetamine,
lithium batteries, heating utensils, paint thinner, bottles, and Sudafed, were provided to
her when she got to the room. T. at 344-345, 355, 364-365, 367-368. She testified she
was dressed when the officers arrived. T. at 349-351.
{¶11} The jury had the opportunity to question Ms. Perkins's credibility via the
plea deal given to her and her cross-examination by appellant's defense counsel. Given
Ms. Perkins's testimony, corroborated by the many items found in appellant's room to
manufacture methamphetamine, the noticeable smoke and chemical smell, and
appellant's attempt to "cover up" the production of methamphetamine after the officers
arrived, we find sufficient credible evidence to sustain the convictions, and no manifest
miscarriage of justice.
{¶12} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Fairfield County, Case No. 12-CA-45 6
{¶13} The judgment of the court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
SGF/sg 521