COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68569 IN RE: RUFUS LEWIS, A Minor : JOURNAL ENTRY : and Appellant : OPINION : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 2, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Juvenile Division : Case No. 9409127 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For appellant: JAMES A. DRAPER Cuyahoga County Public Defender ROBERT M. INGERSOLL, Assistant The Marion Building, #307 1276 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1569 For appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor MICHAEL P. DONNELLY, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J.: Defendant-appellant Rufus Lewis appeals from his juvenile adjudication of delinquency for drug abuse in violation of R.C. 2925.03 and possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On June 21, 1994, Detective William Reese of the Cleveland Police Department returned a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, against Rufus Lewis. The complaint alleged that Lewis prepared for shipment, shipped, transported, delivered, prepared for distribution or distributed cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, and that Lewis possessed money with the intent to use it criminally, in violation of R.C. 2923.24. A juvenile hearing was held before Judge Kenneth A. Rocco on September 29, 1994, at which Judge Rocco declared Rufus Lewis to be delinquent. On the same day, Judge Rocco sentenced Lewis to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for not less than one year nor longer than until Lewis reached his twenty-first birthday. On March 29, 1995, Rufus Lewis filed a pro se Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Transcript at State's expense. This court granted both motions on April 17, 1995 and appointed the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office to the appeal. - 3 - The state's key evidence included testimony from Detectives Charles Thomas and Terry Preston of the Cleveland Police Depart- ment, Vice Street Crimes Unit. Det. Thomas testified that on June 1, 1994, he and his partner, Detective Preston, set up sur- veillance of the intersection of East 116th and Regalia investi- gating complaints of drug trafficking. Det. Thomas testified that he observed a green Buick with three occupants about twenty feet from his location. The males got in and out of the car, taking turns, and he observed Rufus Lewis make at least two drug trans- actions. Det. Thomas testified that he and Det. Preston watched for about twenty minutes while the three males would each get out of the car and hold a brief conversation, after which the "guy" would go to a location where he had his drug stash and then return and hand the drugs to the person involved, who would then, in turn, hand the "guy" an object which Det. Thomas thought was currency. After twenty minutes Det. Preston made a controlled buy. Detective Terry Preston testified that he and his partner monitored the actions for about twenty minutes. He identified Rufus Lewis. After watching the activity for the twenty minutes, Det. Preston approached the car and made a controlled buy of cocaine from Charles Pace. Det. Preston gave Det. Thomas a signal, and Thomas radioed for the backup units to effect the arrest. The three males who were in the green Buick were searched, and Rufus Lewis was in the back and was found to be in possession of $339.00. On cross-examination, Det. Preston testified that the rocks of - 4 - crack cocaine were discarded in the back of the car by Charles Pace, but to his knowledge, none were found in the back seat or on Rufus Lewis. Det. Preston testified on cross-examination that Rufus Lewis made two transactions. Rufus Lewis testified on his own behalf. He stated that his mother had given him $339 to purchase summer clothes, $200 from her ADC check and $139 of her own money. His cousin and a friend, Charles Pace, picked him up while he was waiting for a bus to the mall. He sat in the car with them and smoked a "blunt." He tes- tified that he never exited the vehicle, had no crack cocaine and made no drug transactions out of the car and that the money which he had was not drug money. On cross-examination, Lewis testified that he knew Charles Pace was selling cocaine. Sherry Lewis, the mother of Rufus Lewis, testified that she had given Lewis money from the ADC check and $139 in cash for him to go to the mall to buy tennis shoes. In support of his appeal, the defendant-appellant assigns one error for our review: RUFUS LEWIS HAS BEEN DENIED HIS LIBERTY WITH- OUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY HIS JUVENILE ADJU- DICATIONS FOR DRUG ABUSE AND POSSESSING CRIM- INAL TOOLS, WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF DELINQUENCY. Within this assignment of error, the defendant-appellant's claim is that the trial judge's adjudication of delinquency was based upon insufficient evidence. - 5 - An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence submitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. 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. The essential elements of the offense at issue are as fol- lows: R.C. 2925.03 Trafficking in drugs. (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: * * * (2) Prepare for shipment, ship, trans- port, deliver, prepare for distribution or distribute a controlled substance, when the defendant knows or has reasonable cause to believe the controlled substance (here cocaine) was intended for sale or resale by the defendant or another. R.C. 2923.24 Possessing criminal tools. (A) No person shall possess or have under his control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally (here money). Our inquiry, therefore, must be based on whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecu- tion, permitted reasonable minds to find that appellant was guilty - 6 - beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the within case, the state must establish that appellant knowingly had possession of drugs intended for sale or resale and possession of criminal tools (here the money involved in a drug transaction). The state presented the testimony of Cleveland Police Detec- tives, who observed, in daylight and at close range, Rufus Lewis get out of the green Buick and transact two drug deals. After the controlled purchase of cocaine by Det. Preston from Charles Pace, all three of the car's occupants were arrested. When Rufus Lewis was arrested, he had $339 in his pocket. The testimony of the officers constituted substantial evi- dence from which the finder of fact, here the court, could reasonably conclude that the defendant, Rufus Lewis, was distri- buting cocaine and was in possession of criminal tools (here the money). Viewing the evidence adduced at appellant's trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of drug abuse and possession of criminal tools were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court properly adjudged the appellant to be delinquent child. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - - 8 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. LEO M. SPELLACY, P.J. and ANN DYKE, J. CONCUR JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .