State v. Leffingwell, 2013 Ohio 1421

This is an appeal from a Lawrence County Common Pleas Court conviction for burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) with an eight-year sentence.
Indictment was filed August 29, 2011 after a May 7–8, 2011 burglary of Kevin McWhorter’s residence, with theft of an X-Box, games, wallet, watch, and ring.
Chelsa Watkins testified that Leffingwell sold her stolen items and admitted entering the home while someone slept; a recording of her statements exists.
Leffingwell denied the burglary and claimed the items were obtained from an individual named “Little D.”
Appellant challenges five assignments of error: sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, leading questions, sentencing, and post-release control notification; the court sustains in part and remands on post-release control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	State argues evidence, viewed offoot, proves all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	Leffingwell argues the evidence is insufficient to prove burglary beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State contends jury credibility determinations supported by the record.	Leffingwell asserts inconsistencies render the verdict against weight of the evidence.	Conviction not against the manifest weight; credibility issues for the jury.
Leading questions	State claims the questioning of Watkins was within trial court discretion and harmless.	Leffingwell argues improper leading questioning of a witness on direct examination.	No reversible error; any error was harmless in light of remaining evidence.
Sentence	State contends eight-year term is supported by the record under Kalish framework.	Leffingwell argues the sentence is an abuse of discretion.	Eight-year sentence affirmed.
Post-release control notification	State maintains sentence complies with post-release control statutes.	Leffingwell contends notice was not properly given at sentencing.	Remanded to correct post-release control notification; sentencing affirmed in part.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency review and reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial evidence treated as sufficient when probative)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (2008) (reaffirmed reasonable-doubt standard in sufficiency review)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency considerations)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step sentencing review; abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (mandatory post-release-control notification at sentencing; remand when missing)