State v. Atchley

2026-Ohio-1373 · Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio · April 15, 2026 · No. CT2025-0101

Summary

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Shawn Atchley’s convictions, including drug trafficking, arising from his possession of approximately 1.5 grams of fentanyl divided into 11 baggies. The court held that the trafficking conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, relying on the drug packaging, officer testimony, and Atchley’s admission that he intended to share some of the fentanyl. The court also concluded that the jury’s decision not to forfeit cash did not conflict with the trafficking verdict.

Court
Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio
Writing for the Court
David M. Gormley; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham
Jurisdiction
Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals
Decision date
April 15, 2026
Docket number
CT2025-0101
Procedural posture
Atchley appealed his convictions, challenging only his drug-trafficking conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard of review
For a manifest-weight challenge, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror, reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and reasonable inferences, considers witness credibility, and reverses only when the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. The court leaves issues of evidentiary weight and credibility to the factfinder when a rational basis exists in the record.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Shawn M. Atchley v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestandard of reviewappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Atchley's conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
  2. Whether the evidence of fentanyl packaged in 11 tied-off baggies and Atchley's testimony that he intended to share some of it supported an inference that he knowingly prepared the substance for distribution or sale.

Holdings

  1. The conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury had a rational basis to find that Atchley intended to distribute or sell the fentanyl.

Key quotations

In determining whether a felony conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror (¶ 6)
Because a gift constitutes a sale under the statute, Atchley’s own testimony provided the jury with direct evidence of an intent to sell the drugs. (¶ 10)
While cash, weapons, multiple phones, scales, and customer records may be associated with drug trafficking, none of them are required to prove a trafficking offense (¶ 13)

Factual background

Police officers observed Atchley, who was legally barred from possessing a firearm, carrying a handgun in a tavern and arrested him. A search incident to arrest revealed the handgun, $1,200 in cash, and 11 tied-off baggies containing approximately 1.5 grams of fentanyl. At trial, Atchley admitted possessing the drugs and firearm but denied intending to sell the fentanyl, testifying that he planned to use it himself and hoped to share some with a female acquaintance.

Procedural history

Atchley was indicted in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on two weapon-under-disability charges, drug possession, and trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, with related forfeiture and firearm specifications. A jury found him guilty on all counts and specifications, but found that $1,200 in cash was not subject to forfeiture. The trial court merged the weapons charges and the drug-possession and trafficking charges and sentenced Atchley on one weapon-under-disability charge and the trafficking charge. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Fifth District Court Of Appeals Fifth District Court Of Appeals