State v. Goodwin, 82 N.E.3d 1

A dead, emaciated mixed-breed dog was found inside a covered cage in a dumpster outside an apartment complex; the dog had open wounds and moldy food was in the cage. Butler County dog warden Deputy Kurt Merbs investigated and found the owner’s tag.
Owner Sarah Schmuck initially said she gave the dog away, later admitted she put the dog in the dumpster after it died; she testified at trial that Goodwin had nothing to do with the death or disposal.
Goodwin initially gave a statement to Merbs admitting he cared for the dog for a week, rarely let it out of the cage, did not seek veterinary care, and later disposed of the dog in a dumpster; at trial he recanted and said he falsely admitted responsibility to protect Schmuck.
The municipal court discredited Schmuck’s and Goodwin’s trial testimony, credited the dog warden, found Goodwin guilty of cruelty to animals under R.C. 959.131(B), and sentenced him to jail, community control, a $400 fine, and fees including $985.
On appeal Goodwin challenged (1) sufficiency and manifest-weight of the evidence, (2) imposition/notice of a $985 supervisory fee, and (3) a clerical error in the judgment entry describing the offense; the appellate court affirmed the conviction, upheld the fees, but remanded to correct the clerical mistake via nunc pro tunc entry.

Issue	State's Argument	Goodwin's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for cruelty (R.C. 959.131(B))	Evidence showed Goodwin agreed to care for the dog, confined it, failed to obtain treatment, and knowingly caused/allowed suffering; trier of fact could credit warden’s testimony.	Contended (a) statute criminalizes acts not omissions, so failure to care cannot support (B); (b) state needed veterinary/expert proof of cause of death and cruelty.	Court held conviction supported. Definitions incorporated by R.C. 1717.01(B) include omissions; record showed Goodwin undertook care, failed to act, and caused unnecessary suffering. No vet expert required for (B).
Imposition / notice of $985 fee (supervisory/community-control fee)	Trial court imposed supervised community control; supervisory fee was listed in the General Conditions executed by Goodwin and within statutory limits.	Argued $985 fee was not discussed at sentencing and therefore improper.	Court held fee valid: sentencing colloquy plus executed supervision form put Goodwin on notice; fee amount permitted by statute.
Clerical error in judgment entry describing statute section	N/A (court acknowledged clerical nature)	Judgment entry misidentified the statute/section for the conviction.	Court sustained error as clerical under Crim.R. 36 and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to accurately reflect the statute charged/convicted.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)