STATE OF OHIO v. JAMES P. WICKWIRE
C.A. No. 27675
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
August 3, 2016
2016-Ohio-5217
WHITMORE, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 14 CRB 969
Dated: August 3, 2016
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, James P. Wickwire, appeals from the judgment of the Barberton Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} David Mazey owns an “up and down” duplex located at 318 Wunderlich Avenue in Barberton, Ohio. On May 4, 2014, Mr. Mazey learned that someone had stolen the refrigerator and stove out of the upstairs unit. Upon reliable information, the police located Mr. Mazey‘s property at Mr. Wickwire‘s residence. For several years, Mr. Wickwire had been a tenant of Mr. Mazey‘s at 318 Wunderlich Avenue. However, Mr. Wickwire voluntarily moved out of the downstairs unit after allegedly renting the upstairs unit, without Mr. Mazey‘s knowledge or consent, to Scott Archer. After Mr. Wickwire and Mr. Archer moved out of Mr. Mazey‘s duplex, Mr. Archer reported the stolen appliances to the police.
{¶4} A bench trial commenced wherein Mr. Mazey and Officer Jonathan Gibbs testified on behalf of the State, and Mr. Jeffrey Doan testified on behalf of Mr. Wickwire. The trial court found Mr. Wickwire guilty of theft and sentenced him as follows: (1) 180 days imprisonment with 90 days suspended so long as he does not commit any misdemeanor or felony in the next two years; (2) in lieu of imprisonment, 90 days of house arrest in Akron, Ohio; (3) restitution to Mr. Mazey in the amount of $850; and (4) fines and court costs.
{¶5} Mr. Wickwire now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
II
Assignment of Error Number One
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. WICKWIRE‘S CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Wickwire argues that the State failed to present any reliable or credible evidence that: (1) Mr. Mazey owned the stove and refrigerator and (2) Mr. Wickwire deprived Mr. Mazey of his property.
{¶7} In response, the State argues that the evidence shows: (1) the stove and refrigerator went missing from Mr. Mazey‘s upstairs unit at 318 Wunderlich Avenue; (2) Mr. Mazey owned the property; (3) Mr. Wickwire admitted to taking the property; and (4) Mr. Mazey did not give Mr. Wickwire consent to take the property.
{¶8} “A motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure may be granted only when the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” State v. Levine, 9th Dist. Summit No. 17978, 1997 WL 193337, *3 (Apr. 16, 1997), citing State v. Fields, 102 Ohio App.3d 284, 288 (12th Dist.1995). “‘[S]ufficiency’ is a term of art meaning
{¶9} Mr. Wickwire was found guilty of violating
No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property * * *, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over * * * the property * * * in any of the following ways:
* * *
(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent[.]
* * *
Further, if the value of the property is less than $1000 “a violation of this section is petty theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree.”
{¶10} “‘[F]or a violation of
{¶11} Here, the record indicates that: (1) Officer Gibbs was dispatched to Mr. Archer‘s residence to take a report regarding the theft of a stove and refrigerator; (2) Officer Gibbs located the stove and refrigerator at Mr. Wickwire‘s residence and photographed the property as part of his investigation; (3) Officer Gibbs testified that Mr. Wickwire admitted to moving the stove and refrigerator to his residence at 358 Wunderlich; (4) Officer Gibbs advised Mr. Wickwire to return the stove and refrigerator to Mr. Mazey‘s duplex; (5) Mr. Mazey testified that the stove and refrigerator were, in fact, missing from the upstairs unit at 318 Wunderlich Avenue; (6) Mr. Mazey identified the stove and refrigerator in Officer Gibbs’ photographs as being his property; (7) Mr. Mazey testified that he did not give Mr. Wickwire consent to take his property, nor did Mr. Wickwire return his property to the duplex; and (8) Mr. Mazey testified that the replacement cost for the stove and refrigerator is $850.
{¶12} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that: (1) the stove and refrigerator in question belonged to Mr. Mazey; (2) Mr. Wickwire took possession of the property without Mr. Mazey‘s consent; (3) Mr. Wickwire intended to deprive Mr. Mazey of his property; and (4) the replacement cost of the property was $850. Based upon these facts, a rational tier of fact could have found the essential
{¶13} Mr. Wickwire‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error Number Two
THE TRIAL COURT‘S JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS ALSO AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶14} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Wickwire argues that the trial court‘s judgment was against the sufficiency of the evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence. In light of the discussion above, we decline to further address Mr. Wickwire‘s sufficiency argument. “‘We review a denial of a defendant‘s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal by assessing the sufficiency of the State‘s evidence.‘” State v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27389, 2015-Ohio-2842, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Frashuer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24769, 2010-Ohio-634, ¶ 33; see also Levine, 1997 WL 193337, at *3.
{¶15} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence an appellate court:
must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine 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.” State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).
{¶16} A weight of the evidence challenge indicates that a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of the issue than it supports the other. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. Further, when reversing a conviction on the basis that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as the “thirteenth juror” and disagrees with the factfinder‘s resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id. at 388, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). An appellate court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the judgment and findings of fact of the trial court. Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12, 19 (1988). Therefore, this Court‘s “discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983); see also Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d at 340.
{¶17} Here, Mr. Wickwire fails to: (1) make any specific argument as to why his conviction for theft should be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) direct this Court to any conflicting testimony in the record, or (3) point to any evidence in the record weighing heavily against his conviction. See Thompkins at 387-388, see also Martin at 175. Pursuant to
{¶18} Mr. Wickwire‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III
{¶19} Mr. Wickwire‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Barberton Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES K. REED, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MICHELLE L. BANBURY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.