State v. Syph

2025 Ohio 5075

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: L-24-1155
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Syph, 2025-Ohio-5075.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1155

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302084

v.

Brayon Syph DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: November 7, 2025

***** Julia R. Bates, Esq., Lucas County Prosecutor and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

***** OSOWIK, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal of a May 21, 2024 judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas, denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, and convicting

appellant on one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree, one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of operation of a motor vehicle

without a valid driver’s license, in violation of R.C. 4510.12, a misdemeanor of the first

degree.

{¶ 2} On June 13, 2024, appellant was sentenced to a one-year term of

incarceration on Count 1, Counts 1 and 2 were found to be allied offenses of similar

import and were merged for sentencing, a 180-day term of incarceration on Count 3, and

a 30-day term of incarceration for a contempt offense committed by appellant during the

course of the trial proceedings, all sentences ordered to be served concurrently. For the

reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.

{¶ 3} Appellant, Brayon Syph, sets forth the following two assignments of error:

“I. The trial court erred when it denied appellant’s motion for acquittal pursuant

to Crim.R. 29 as to the offense of [operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s

license].

“II. Appellant’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine was not supported by the

manifest weight of the evidence.”

{¶ 4} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On May 25,

2023, Detective Mugler of the Toledo Police Department narcotics division was on patrol

in central Toledo, working in collaboration with Trooper Boisel of the Ohio State

Highway Patrol. They were performing a joint gang activity sweep in an area prone to

high levels of criminal activity, particularly drug offenses.

2. {¶ 5} Upon observing appellant fail to stop at a stop sign, the officers conducted a

traffic stop. Although appellant refused to provide the officers with his physical driver’s

license, he alternatively provided the number of his Georgia driver’s license. The license

number was then run through the LEADS computer system and shown to be under

suspension. During the course of the traffic stop, a canine drug sniffing unit trekked the

perimeter of appellant’s vehicle and alerted affirmatively to unlawful drugs inside the

vehicle.

{¶ 6} Following the drug detection alert by the canine unit, the officers searched

appellant’s vehicle and, in the space immediately adjacent to appellant’s seat, they

recovered one plastic baggie containing approximately 8g of cocaine, a second, smaller

plastic baggie containing less than 1g of crack cocaine, and a drug weighing scale

containing cocaine residue. In conjunction, they recovered $180 cash from appellant’s

person. The record shows that appellant possesses an extensive criminal history spanning

three states, including multiple prior felony drug offenses.

{¶ 7} On July 19, 2023, based upon the above-detailed events, appellant was

indicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a

felony of the fourth degree, one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of operation of a motor vehicle

without a valid driver’s license, in violation of R.C. 4510.12, a misdemeanor of the first

3. {¶ 8} On May 21, 2024, appellant declined a plea agreement offer that would

have entailed a plea to an amended, lesser offense of possession of cocaine, as reduced to

a felony of the fifth degree, the dismissal of the remaining counts, credit for time served,

and placement on community control. However, appellant refused the above-detailed

plea offer, waived a jury trial, refused to execute the accompanying jury waiver, and

elected to proceed to a bench trial on all counts.

{¶ 9} Following the bench trial, appellant was convicted of all counts, as well as

a contempt offense committed by appellant during the course of the trial proceedings.

Appellant was sentenced to a one-year term of incarceration on Count 1, Counts 1 and 2

were merged for sentencing, a 180-day term of incarceration on Count 3, a 30-day term

of incarceration on the contempt offense, all ordered to be served concurrently. This

appeal ensued.

{¶ 10} In the first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in

denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, as specifically pertaining to the

conviction of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license, in violation of

R.C. 4510.12. We do not concur.

{¶ 11} As this court held in State v. Cavin, 2025-Ohio-1578, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.),

[A] motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Daniel, 2023-Ohio-2800, ¶ 46 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Messer, 2017-Ohio-1223, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Brinkley, 2005-Ohio-1507, ¶ 39. The trial court’s denial of a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) is governed by the same standard as the one for determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. Id., citing Messer at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Tenace, 2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37. In

4. reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., quoting Messer at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 (1997). In making that determination, the appellate court does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id., citing Messer at ¶ 16, citing State v. Were, 2008-Ohio-2762, ¶ 132. The question of whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is a question of law. Id., citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).

{¶ 12} In conjunction, Crim.R. 29(A) provides,

The court on a motion of the defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.

{¶ 13} Lastly, R.C. 4510.12(A)(1) establishes, in relevant part, “No person * * *

shall operate any motor vehicle upon a public road or highway or any public or private

property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel are parking in the state unless

the person has a valid driver’s license.”

{¶ 14} At trial, as relevant to the first assignment of error, appellee presented the

testimony of Detective Mugler (“Mugler”), one of the two officers on patrol on May 25,

2023, who conducted the initial traffic stop of appellant, culminating in the offenses

underlying this appeal. Mugler first testified,

I’m a detective on the Toledo police gang task force * * * for about two and one-half years now and a Toledo police officer coming up on 8 years * * * [On May 25, 2023], I was working with OSP Trooper Boisel * * * we were driving northbound on Junction * * * we observed a 1979 white Mercury fail to stop at that intersection [Junction and Indiana].

5. {¶ 15} As relevant to the operation of a motor vehicle without a valid license

conviction, Mugler next testified, “I asked [appellant] for his driver’s license. It appeared

like he was going to give it to me[,] then he stopped and said he would [alternatively]

give me his driver’s license number * * * but it was not valid.” Follow-up inquiry was

made, “[W]as [appellant’s license number] ever run through the computer?” Mugler

replied, “Yes, ma’am. [Appellant] did not have a valid [driver’s] license.”

{¶ 16} In applying the above-discussed governing legal framework to this case, we

find that the transcript of the bench trial proceedings clearly contains evidence that, when

viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reflects that a rational trier of fact

could have found that evidence was presented demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt

that when the traffic stop of appellant was made on May 25, 2023, appellant had been

operating a motor vehicle upon a public road without a valid driver’s license. The record

clearly shows that appellant solely possessed a Georgia’s operator’s license that, upon

investigation, was established to be under suspension. No valid operator’s license was

presented by appellant or determined to exist for appellant.

{¶ 17} Wherefore, in accord with Cavin, we find appellant’s first assignment of

error not well-taken.

{¶ 18} In appellant’s second assignment of error, appellant argues that his

conviction for trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) was against the

manifest weight of the evidence. We do not concur.

{¶ 19} As this court held in State v. Bleau, 2025-Ohio-1951, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.),

6. In a bench trial, the court assumes the fact-finding function of the jury. Accordingly, to warrant reversal from a bench trial under a manifest weight of the evidence claim, it must be determined that the court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Hayes, 2004-Ohio-6460, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). Due deference must be accorded the findings of the trial court because the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony. Id., citing State v. Archie, 2004- Ohio-4844 (6th Dist.). Reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

{¶ 20} In conjunction, R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) establishes, in relevant part, “No person

shall knowingly * * * [p]repare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for

distribution, or distribute a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog * * *

intended for sale or resale by the offender or another person.”

{¶ 21} As related to the disputed trafficking in cocaine conviction, Mugler first

testified that the, “Canine Unit [trekked the perimeter of the vehicle and affirmatively

alerted to] the possibility of narcotics.” Accordingly, Mugler then conducted a search of

the interior of the vehicle. Mugler testified that he discovered, “[T]ucked in between the

driver’s seat [where appellant had been seated] and the middle console there was a large

bag of white powder * * * a black and silver scale[,] and another smaller bag of hardened

white product.”

{¶ 22} In conjunction, appellee presented the testimony of Chadwyck Douglass

(“Douglass”), a senior criminalist with the Toledo Police Crime Lab. Douglass first

7. testified in detail regarding his 22 years of relevant professional experience, including his

training, education, and his provision of expert testimony at the state and federal level in

numerous drug trafficking cases. Douglass next testified regarding his performance of

tests on the above-detailed items recovered from appellant’s vehicle, and his findings in

connection to same. Douglass testified, “State’s Exhibit 6 contains 7.70g of cocaine * * *

I determined that the residue on the scale contained cocaine * * * I was able to scrape

enough of the white residue off of the scale in order to identify the item as cocaine.”

{¶ 23} The record shows that when appellant was stopped on May 25, 2023, a

canine unit affirmatively alerted to the presence of drugs in appellant’s vehicle. The

record further shows that upon conducting a subsequent search of the vehicle, a plastic

bag containing 7.70g of cocaine [$800 in street value], a smaller plastic bag containing

less than 1g of crack cocaine, and a drug measuring scale containing cocaine residue

were found between the driver’s seat and the center console. In conjunction, appellant

was found with $180 in cash on his person. The record shows that appellant was stopped

upon running a stop sign in an area prone to drug activity during a multi-agency, law

enforcement crime sweep of the area. Appellant’s argument on appeal that the above-

enumerated items recovered from his vehicle, “fall within the realm of possession for

[appellant’s] personal use” is unsupported and unpersuasive. The manifest weight of the

evidence supported the trial court’s determination that appellant had been unlawfully

engaged in transporting and delivering cocaine for sale or resale.

8. {¶ 24} Thus, we find that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court

clearly lost its way, created a manifest miscarriage of justice, and that this case

constitutes an exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the disputed

cocaine trafficking conviction. We find appellant’s second assignment of error not well-

taken.

{¶ 25} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal

pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, P.J. CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

9.