State v. SturgillState v. Sturgill
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-507245
RELEASED: May 13, 2010
JOURNALIZED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Patricia J. Smith
4403 St. Clair Avenue
The Brownhoist Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
Also listed:
Ryan Sturgill
Inmate No. 553-277
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
Lebanon, Ohio 44901
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Nathaniel Tosi
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court‘s decision. See
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ryan Sturgill, appeals his conviction for aggravated theft and his sentence. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2008, Sturgill was indicted for one count of burglary, four counts of aggravated theft, and two counts of receiving stolen property. He entered a plea of not guilty to the charges, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶ 3} The victim testified that on the night of January 2, 2008, she left her purse in her car, which was parked in her garage. She thought she put the garage door down, but the next morning she discovered it was open throughout the night. She indicated that between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., she heard a noise in her garage that sounded like a car door was opening and closing.
{¶ 4} Around 8:30 a.m. the next morning, January 3, 2008, the victim received a phone call from National City Bank regarding unusual activity on her account. She went to her car, retrieved her purse, and discovered her debit and credit cards were gone. The victim does not know Sturgill, did not give him permission to use her cards, and did not use any of her cards on January 3, 2008.
{¶ 5} Carl Catucci, a loss prevention officer for Giant Eagle, and Detective Alex Bakos of the Olmsted Falls Police Department also testified for the state. Surveillance video and register journals were introduced to show who was using the victim‘s credit cards and when they were used. Her cards were used at Giant Eagle and GetGo locations in the early morning hours of January 3, 2008.
{¶ 6} Detective Bakos testified that Sturgill admitted he had a drug addiction and was high when he committed crimes in which he would go into developments, break into cars, take credit cards, and use the cards as quickly as possible after the theft. When Det. Bakos informed Sturgill that one of the stolen credit cards in this case was connected to an organization involving the homeless, Sturgill conceded that he “f* * *d up.”
{¶ 7} Detective Kevin Ross of Medina County testified that he had an arrest warrant for Sturgill regarding an incident in Medina County. During the investigation, Sturgill admitted that he had a drug problem and that he would go into neighborhoods seeking unlocked vehicles and would steal credit cards and use them to purchase prepaid gift and credit cards. No statements were made to Detective Ross concerning the charges in the present case.
{¶ 8} The jury found Sturgill guilty of one count of aggravated theft (
{¶ 10} When an appellate court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence, “‘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.‘” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 67, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus. The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 260, 2006-Ohio-2417, 847 N.E.2d 386.
{¶ 11} Sturgill challenges his conviction for theft in violation of
{¶ 12} Sturgill argues that although he admitted to possessing the cards, there was no evidence to establish that he stole the victim‘s credit cards from the car in her garage. He states that another individual could have stolen the cards before he possessed them.
{¶ 14} Upon our review, we find the evidence in this case, as well as the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, was sufficient to support Sturgill‘s conviction for theft. We conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sturgill‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Sturgill‘s second assignment of error provides as follows: “The trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to serve consecutive sentences.”
{¶ 17} Under current Ohio law, a trial court “now has the discretion and inherent authority to determine whether a prison sentence within the statutory range shall run consecutively or concurrently.” State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472, 480, 2009-Ohio-3478, 912 N.E.2d 582; State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174, 178, 2008-Ohio-1983, 887 N.E.2d 328. Although recognized, the Ohio Supreme Court has yet “to address fully all ramifications of [Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517.]” In Elmore, the court followed its Foster decision, and reiterated that trial courts “‘are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.‘” Elmore, supra at 482, quoting State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. Until the Ohio Supreme Court states otherwise, this court continues to follow Foster. State v. Pinkney, Cuyahoga App. No. 91861, 2010-Ohio-237; State v. Eatmon, Cuyahoga App. No. 92048, 2009-Ohio-4564. Accordingly, Sturgill‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ANN DYKE, J., and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR