State v. Anthony
2013 Ohio 2955
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Indictment charged Anthony with one count of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(3)), a third-degree felony, based on events July 15, 2011 at Doris Welday’s house in Empire, Ohio.
- Keenan, Welday’s granddaughter, testified Anthony was involved; she later pled guilty to burglary and received probation with a potential six-month term.
- Detective/LPI investigated the scene; fingerprint evidence was of poor quality and not tied to Anthony; no DNA taken.
- Keenan’s credibility and timing of her statements were central as the State relied on her testimony to place Anthony inside the residence.
- Jury found Anthony guilty after deliberations; trial court sentenced him to 30 months in prison.
- On appeal, Anthony contends the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence and the sentence/post-release-control notification were improper; court remands for limited post-release-control resentencing while affirming the conviction and most of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the burglary conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Anthony argues Keenan’s credibility flaws undermine the verdict. | Keenan’s inconsistencies show the jury clearly lost its way. | Conviction not against the manifest weight; credible jury verdict. |
| Did the trial court properly notify about post-release control and include consequences in the sentencing entry? | Anthony asserts improper notification and missing consequences. | Court adequately advised but misstated term and omitted details in entry. | Error in notification/entry; remand for limited post-release-control resentencing per R.C. 2929.191(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest weight review; jury credibility favored)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight matters for the jury)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) ( Kalish: Kalish inquiry in sentencing review)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (post-release control notification requirements and remedies)
- State v. Murphy, 2011-Ohio-5416 (2011) (journal entry as evidence of sentencing considerations)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (2007) (trial court speaks through journal entry; sentencing considerations)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (nunc pro tunc correction for post-release control notification where applicable)
- State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-2558 (2012) (post-release control notification corrections after July 11, 2006)