State v. ParksState v. Parks
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on May 13, 20101
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellee.
Kirk A. McVay, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Edward M. Parks, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
{¶3} As a result, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellant with two counts of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in violation of
{¶4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors:
[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE OF THE INDICTMENT WHEN THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THOSE CONVICTIONS AND THEY ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL GUARANTEED BY AMENDMENTS V AND XIV OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. [2.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF OHIO, WHEN IT ORDERED BY WAY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT ENTRY OF JUNE 23, 2009 THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PAY COURT COSTS IN THIS MATTER, AS THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AMEND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S SENTENCE AT THAT TIME.
{¶5} Appellant contends in his first assignment of error that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶6} The Supreme Court of Ohio delineated the role of an appellate court presented with a sufficiency of the evidence argument in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus:
An appellate court‘s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *
{¶7} Whether the evidence is legally sufficient is a question of law, not fact. Thompkins at 386. Indeed, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must give “full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
{¶8} A manifest weight of the evidence claim requires a different review. The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered to support one side of the issue rather than the other. State v. Brindley, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-926, 2002-Ohio-2425, ¶16. When presented with a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court, after ” ‘reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” Thompkins at 387 (quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175). An appellate court should reserve reversal of a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence for only the most ” ‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” Id.
{¶9} A defendant is not entitled to a reversal on manifest weight grounds merely because inconsistent evidence was presented at trial. State v. Raver, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-604, 2003-Ohio-958, ¶21. Neither is a conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trier of fact believed the state‘s version of events over the
{¶10} Although sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts, manifest weight may subsume sufficiency in conducting the analysis; that is, a finding that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding of sufficiency. State v. Braxton, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-725, 2005-Ohio-2198, ¶15 (citing State v. Roberts (Sept. 17, 1997), 9th Dist. No. 96CA006462. “[T]hus, a determination that a conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.” Id. In that regard, we first examine whether appellant‘s convictions are supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Sowell, 10th Dist. No. 2008-Ohio-3285, ¶89.
{¶11} Appellant argues the state failed to prove that he was the person driving the Toyota Camry on the night of January 8, 2009. Appellant points out that no witness testified that he was the driver of the Camry or that he was even inside the car. While
{¶12} Appellant is correct that the state‘s case against him is entirely circumstantial. No one testified that appellant was driving the Camry during the high speed chase on the night in question. In fact, no one saw appellant inside the car. However, it is well-established that circumstantial evidence possesses the same probative value as direct evidence. Sowell at ¶92 (citing Treesh). Here, police officers chased a stolen car. One officer testified that he was able to look inside the car during the chase and thought it was “pretty clear” that there was only one person in the car. (Tr. at 115.) After the car stopped in a field, the officers on the ground were informed that the driver had exited the car and was traveling through a wooded area. Officers apprehended appellant as he left that wooded area, less than 500 feet away from the car. Officers saw no other people in the area.
{¶13} In light of this circumstantial evidence, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way in concluding that appellant was the driver of the car. Accordingly, appellant‘s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This resolution is also dispositive of appellant‘s claim that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. Sowell. Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶14} Appellant contends in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred when it modified his sentence in an amended sentencing entry by increasing the severity of his punishment after he began serving his sentence. We disagree.
{¶16} The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions bar a trial court from modifying a sentence by increasing it after execution of that sentence has commenced. U.S. v. Benz (1931), 282 U.S. 304, 307, 51 S.Ct. 113, 114; State v. Parsons (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 284, 286. However, these constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy do not preclude a trial court from correcting an erroneous sentencing entry so that it accurately reflects the penalty imposed at the sentencing hearing, regardless of whether the defendant has already begun to serve his sentence. Id.; see also
{¶17} A trial court must assess court costs against a convicted defendant. See State v. Moody, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1034, 2007-Ohio-2938, ¶6 (citing State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989) (noting that
{¶18} In conclusion, we overrule appellant‘s two assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT and CONNOR, JJ., concur.