State v. KellerState v. Keller
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Rondale E. Keller, аppeals his conviction in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for robbery. For the reasons stated below, we affirm his conviction.
{¶ 2} In February 2018, appellant approached a woman as she was opening the driver‘s side door of her vehicle which was parked on the street in front of her house. Appellant pressed against the door to pin the victim to the frame of the vehicle and then used his arm to sweep the victim away from the door. During the sweeping motion, the victim fell
{¶ 3} Responding police officers were able to quickly locate the vehicle a few blocks away. Officers used a police dog to track appellant to a nearby house. As law enforcement converged on the house, a resident exited the front door to inquire about the police presence. Those officers asked to search the home and the resident consented. Officers entered the house and found appellant in an upstairs bedroom. Officers later found the victim‘s car keys рartially concealed in an eyeglass case in the closet of the same bedroom in which they found appellant. The victim positivеly identified appellant as the perpetrator after an officer brought her to the house. Appellant was arrested and taken into custody.
{¶ 4} Based on those facts, appellant was indicted for robbery, a second-degree felony, in violation of
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals the conviction raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 6} MR. KELLER‘S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction was against the mаnifest weight of the evidence because he testified that he did not touch the victim. Specifically, appellant asserts he took the vеhicle because he found it unlocked, with the engine running, and no other people around. We find that appellant‘s argument lacks merit.
{¶ 8} An appellate court reviews a manifest weight of evidence challenge by examining the “inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” State v. Cobb, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-06-153, 2008-Ohio-5210, ¶ 94. To determine whether a jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage оf justice that requires the reversal of the conviction and an order for a new trial. State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St. 3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168. While an appellate court review must consider witness credibility and weight of the evidence, those factors are primarily for the jury to decide. State v. Gerdes, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-056, 2019-Ohio-913, ¶ 10. Only in the exceptional instance where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction will an appellate court overturn the conviction on a manifest weight challenge. State v. Griffin, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2017-10-150, 2018-Ohio-3119, ¶ 7.
{¶ 9} Relevant to this review, a person commits robbery when he inflicts, attempts to inflict, or threatens to inflict physical harm on another, while committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing a theft offense.
{¶ 10} At trial, appellant testified on his own behalf. During his testimony, appellant admitted that he stole the victim‘s vehiclе, thereby committing a theft offense. Therefore, the only question for us to decide is whether the appellant inflicted physical harm on the viсtim during the commission of the theft.
{¶ 11} After our review of the record, we cannot find that the jury clearly lost its way in convicting appellant of robbery. Thе prosecutor presented credible evidence of the victim‘s injury. This evidence included photographs and testimony from multiple witnesses.
{¶ 13} Both the victim and another witness testified that the victim did not suffer any pain or abrasions prior to her contact with appеllant. The first responding patrol officer also testified that he saw the injury to the victim. Furthermore, a police detective testified that when he interviewed the victim a few hours after the incident, he saw blood on the elbow portion of the victim‘s shirt sleeve that indicated to him the injury was fresh. Finally, the prosecutor presented photographs of the victim taken shortly after the event that clearly showed the elbow injury.
{¶ 14} In addition to his tеstimony that he found the vehicle unattended with the engine running, appellant testified that he was “intoxicated” when he committed the offense, beсause he had consumed alcohol the night before. However, on cross-examination appellant wavered on both the quantity and type of alcohol he consumed the previous night. Moreover, he admitted that he had stopped drinking and slept for several hours beforе encountering the victim. Despite claiming intoxication, appellant was able to give a detailed account of the time leading up to and after the offense.
{¶ 15} It is not against the manifest weight of the evidence when a trier of fact believes the testimony of the prosecution‘s witness. State v. Martino, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-09-139, 2018-Ohio-2882, ¶ 13. While appellant testified in his defense that he did not even see another person around the vehicle, it is apparent the jury fоund that portion of his
{¶ 16} Accordingly, appellant‘s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and his sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.