State v. Prickett, 2017 Ohio 8128

William Prickett was charged with two first-degree misdemeanors for theft of cigarettes from two convenience stores on Nov. 7–8, 2016; bench trial held in Hamilton Municipal Court.
Prickett stipulated that the surveillance videos were authentic and that the person depicted lacked authorization to take the cigarettes, but he denied being the person in the videos.
Officers Gross and Trenum investigated; Gross compared surveillance stills to Prickett’s booking photo and identified him; Trenum saw a man flee near the UDF and, after viewing photos, opined the runner appeared to be Prickett.
Trial court admitted the surveillance videos, booking photo, and stills, found Prickett “firmly” identified in the photos, and convicted him on both counts.
Court sentenced Prickett to concurrent jail terms of 180 days on each count to be served consecutively, awarded jail-time credit, stayed most time and placed him on probation; judgment entry failed to reflect the consecutive nature for one case.
On appeal, Prickett challenged sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed convictions but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the clerical error about consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict Prickett of theft	State: Stipulation that video showed unauthorized taking + identification by officers and comparison to booking photo proved elements beyond reasonable doubt	Prickett: Stipulation only proves an unidentified person committed thefts; insufficient proof he was that person	Held: Sufficient evidence — viewing evidence favorably, a rational trier of fact could find Prickett guilty
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: Photographic evidence and officer testimony were credible; trial court properly weighed evidence	Prickett: Convictions against manifest weight because identifications were unreliable and witnesses could not positively ID him	Held: Not against manifest weight — trial court, as factfinder, did not lose its way; its credibility determinations stand
Clerical error in judgment entry re: consecutive sentences	State: Court sentenced consecutively at hearing and may correct record nunc pro tunc	Prickett: (no successful challenge to consecutive sentencing)	Held: Affirmed sentence substantively but reversed in part to remand for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect consecutive misdemeanor terms

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussing standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishing the sufficiency standard for appellate review)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (authorizing nunc pro tunc correction of clerical sentencing errors)