State v. Seeds
2017 Ohio 9069
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Annette Seeds, PTA officer (treasurer/president), was indicted for grand theft for using PTA debit-card/bank funds from Jan 2011–Oct 2013. The state charged $9,648.89 in specific transactions (fuel, restaurant charges, ATM and cash-back withdrawals).
- Huntington Bank records showed numerous cash-back transactions ($3,050), ATM withdrawals ($6,017.50), restaurant charges ($261.32), and fuel charges ($320.07); many transactions lacked receipts or budgetary authorization.
- Multiple PTA officers testified there was a formal reimbursement process (submit receipt, obtain board approval) and that Seeds refused to add subsequent treasurers to the bank account or provide complete transaction records.
- Forensic accountant (BCI) concluded the questioned transactions were not authorized by the PTA budget; defense witnesses acknowledged some use but said expenditures were for PTA purposes or reimbursements.
- Jury convicted Seeds of fourth-degree felony grand theft; trial court suspended incarceration, imposed community control and restitution. Seeds appealed on sufficiency/manifest-weight and ineffective-assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove expenditures were beyond board consent | State: bank records and multiple witnesses show unauthorized use and refusal to follow reimbursement process | Seeds: as president/treasurer she had authority; monthly reports and some board knowledge implied consent; no proof each specific transaction was unauthorized | Court held evidence sufficient: admissions plus witness testimony and missing receipts supported lack of board consent |
| Manifest weight of the evidence (conversion vs. PTA purpose) | State: credible testimony showed failure to follow reimbursement rules and unexplained withdrawals/charges | Seeds: expenditures were for PTA purposes and state couldn’t trace how funds were spent | Court held weight favored conviction; jurors reasonably credited prosecution evidence and credibility findings were not a miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to detective’s report | Seeds: counsel should have objected to hearsay police report | State: counsel used the report defensively and Seeds failed to show prejudice | Court held no ineffective assistance; strategic use of report and no showing of different outcome |
| Ineffective assistance — counsel’s admission that Seeds used PTA money | Seeds: counsel conceded use, undermining defense | State: strategic choice to concede use and argue consent/reimbursement policy | Court held strategy reasonable and within counsel’s province; not deficient or prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App.3d 548 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (defining sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1998) (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (discussing counsel’s trial decisions and plain-error review)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility)