State v. Vinson
2017 Ohio 4275
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Dec. 11, 2015, C.C. reported jewelry stolen from her late mother’s house in Akron; one distinct gold eagle pendant was among the items.
- Police located the stolen jewelry listed in LEADS at Cashland (Barberton); Cashland records showed a December 12, 2015 sale by someone identified from a driver’s license as "Vinson Lamant Tyrone."
- Cashland employee testified she purchased multiple gold items from the seller, copied his ID, and identified Vinson at trial as that seller; C.C. identified and recovered the jewelry from Cashland.
- Vinson was indicted for receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51) and aggravated possession of drugs; he pleaded guilty to the drug count before trial proceeded on the receiving-stolen-property count.
- At trial Vinson denied selling or seeing the jewelry, disputed the signature on Cashland paperwork, and claimed he had lost his driver’s license prior to the sale; detectives testified Vinson initially denied involvement and blamed an unknown "Rodney."
- Jury convicted Vinson of receiving stolen property but valued the property under $1,000, yielding a first-degree misdemeanor conviction; trial court later imposed court costs in the written judgment though costs were not discussed at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for receiving stolen property | State: evidence (C.C.’s ID of jewelry, Cashland records/employee ID, Vinson’s statements) suffices to prove knowledge/reception of stolen property | Vinson: denied involvement; challenged ID, signature, and discrepancies (tattoos, license timing) | Court: Evidence sufficient; Crim.R.29 denial proper; conviction upheld |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: witnesses credible; jury entitled to resolve conflicts in favor of prosecution | Vinson: testimony and ID inconsistencies show conviction against manifest weight | Court: Not an exceptional case; jury did not lose its way; conviction not against manifest weight |
| Imposition of court costs without discussing them at sentencing | State: (concedes) costs were not mentioned at hearing but appeared in entry | Vinson: deprived opportunity to request waiver; error under Crim.R.43(A) and Joseph | Court: Error; reversed in part and remanded to allow motion for waiver of court costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review under Jackson/Jenks)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (manifest-weight review and reversal standard)
- State v. Arthur, 42 Ohio St.2d 67 (Ohio 1975) (possession of recently stolen property permits inference of knowledge)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973) (possession of recently stolen property inference discussed)
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (Ohio 2004) (trial court may waive statutory court costs for indigent defendants)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2010) (trial court must advise of costs at sentencing; failure requires limited remand to permit waiver motion)