State v. Drake, 2012 Ohio 3718

Drake was convicted by bench trial of identity fraud (< $500), a felony of the fifth degree, after stipulation of facts and a hearing on suppression; the traffic stop involved Drake using Donzell Drake’s name and personal identifiers without permission.
During a December 14, 2010 traffic stop, Drake identified himself as Donzell Drake and signed a citation in that name; the officers discovered the true driver was Timothy Drake.
Drake admitted to providing Donzell Drake’s name and birth date to avoid jail or another ticket, and he signed the traffic citation with Donzell Drake’s name.
The trial court convicted Drake of identity fraud, found him not guilty of forgery and tampering with government records, and held that the identity fraud statutes and the specific statute 4513.361 were not irreconcilable.
The State cross-appealed arguing that R.C. 4513.361 and R.C. 2913.42 are irreconcilable, but the court ultimately affirmed the identity fraud conviction and held the statutes are reconcilable under Volpe and Adkins reasoning.
This Court reviews the trial court’s rulings for sufficiency of the evidence and whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and addresses the State’s cross-appeal on statutory interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether identity fraud conviction stands when a specific statute aligns with a general statute	Drake relied on 4513.361 as controlling	State asserts irreconcilable statutes; general prevails	Identity fraud conviction affirmed; statutes are not irreconcilable.
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove identity fraud	Evidence insufficient to prove use of another’s identifying information	Evidence shows signing Donzell’s name and use of Donzell’s information	Sufficiency established; rational trier could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Record shows dual acts with Donzell’s information	Weight of the evidence disputes credibility	Not against the manifest weight; substantial evidence supports conviction.
Cross-appeal on interpretation of R.C. 4513.361 and R.C. 2913.42	Trial court erred applying 4513.361 over 2913.42	Statutes are reconcilable; signing a citation is not tampering	Volpe-based reconciliation; conviction affirmed; cross-appeal lacking merit.

State v. Volpe, 38 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988) (special vs general provision where irreconcilable penalties can be reconciled under 1.51)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (guide to allied offenses and separate animus in multiple offenses)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (reasonable-doubt standard; sufficiency of evidence)