STATE OF OHIO v. TYLER KEITH SPRINKLE
CASE NO. CA2022-02-004
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
9/12/2022
[Cite as State v. Sprinkle, 2022-Ohio-3182.]
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michael J. Trapp, for appellant.
M. POWELL, P.J.
{1} Appellant, Tyler Sprinkle, appeals his сonviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for trafficking in cocaine. For the reasons stated below, we affirm his conviction.
{2} During the summer of 2019, the Warren County Drug Task Force was investigating Bowdie Reek for drug trafficking. A detective on the task force, working in an
{3} Reek arranged for appellant‘s girlfriend, Corey Jewell, the owner of the silver Mercury, to drive him to the store in exchange for $60. Reek also gave appellant a small amount of heroin, which he used in the car on the way to the store. Appellant rode in the front passenger seat while Reek and Reek‘s girlfriend rode in the back of the car. Jewell drove the car into the parking lot of the Meijer store and stopped at the front doors. She exited the vehicle and entered the store. Appellant then moved from the passenger seat to the driver‘s seat, drove to a parking space in the parking lot, and parked the car.
{4} After Reek informed the undercover deteсtive of his arrival and location in the parking lot, the detective drove his vehicle into the parking lot and parked behind the silver Mercury, just a few parking spaces away. Reek exited the car, walked to the detective‘s vehicle, and then entered the vehicle to complete the drug transaсtion. Appellant and Reek‘s girlfriend remained in the silver Mercury. After Reek completed the sale and returned to the silver Mercury, both he and appellant were arrested, and a search of the vehicle yielded additional drugs and drug paraphernalia.
{5} Appellant was indicted for complicity to trafficking in cocaine and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the state‘s evidence, the trial court denied appеllant‘s Crim.R. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to a mandatory prison term of three to four and one-hаlf years. Appellant now appeals, raising a single assignment of error.
{6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPLLEANT BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{9} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34. The relevant inquiry is whether, “after viewing the evidence in 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.” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, ¶ 113.
{10} Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine under
{11} To be complicit by aiding and abetting, “the evidence must show that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the
{12} After a review of the record, we find that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to convict appellant of trafficking in cocaine. The state presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that appellant knowingly aided and abetted Meek in the commission of the offensе.
{13} The trial court admitted appellant‘s post-arrest interview with Robert Marchiny, a special agent who observed the events of the drug transaction. Thе jury watched the interview, in which the appellant stated that he “had an idea” as to why Reek asked Jewell to drive him to the Meijer store, which was to “droр something off.” Appellant stated that he knew Reek returned from Chicago the previous day and that he saw drugs in Reek‘s home. Appellant also stated thаt he and Jewell, on more than one previous occasion, assisted Reek in dropping off either girls or drugs and that “this time it was drugs.” Appellant explained, “that‘s why I did it—money keeps her happy and I got the drugs.” Further, appellant made clear that while he may have been unaware of the amount of coсaine Reek was selling, he would have “asked for more” heroin if he knew it was “going to be that much.” Appellant stated that he saw the drugs before Reek exitеd the vehicle, and he correctly
{14} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a jury could reasonably conclude that appellant knowingly participated in the sale of cocaine. Appellant was aware that the circumstances of a drug transactiоn probably existed because he previously assisted Reek in dropping off drugs. A jury could reasonably conclude that appellant actively assisted Reek in the transaction when appellant drove Reek from the front of the Meijer store to a parking spot so Reek could complete the sale. Appellant never got out of the car and never moved from the driver‘s seat after seeing Reek exit the car with two ounces of cocaine. The jury determined that appellant was more than an innocent bystander and was more than merely present during the transaction. Appellаnt is unable to demonstrate that the evidence at trial, if believed, was not sufficient to support a conviction. Accordingly, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{15} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.