[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2016-Ohio-7287.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
TIFFANY WILSON : Case No. 2015CA00221
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal
Court, Case No. 2015CRB04587
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 11, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
TASHA FORCHIONE PATRICK L. CUSMA
218 Cleveland Avenue, SW 702 Courtyard Centre
Canton, OH 44702 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW
Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 2
Farmer, P.J.
{¶1} On September 29, 2015, appellant, Tiffany Wilson, was charged with
receiving stolen property (a camera and a ring) in violation of R.C. 2913.51. A jury trial
was held on December 3, 2015. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By
judgment entry filed December 8, 2015, the trial court sentenced appellant to one
hundred eighty days in jail, all but thirty days suspended.
{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶3} "THE VERDICT AGAINST APPELLANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE."
II
{¶4} "THE VERDICT AGAINST APPELLANT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
III
{¶5} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS A RESULT OF CUMULATIVE
ERROR AND SHOULD BE REVERSED ACCORDINGLY."
I, II
{¶6} Appellant claims her conviction for receiving stolen property was against
the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence as the state failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that she exercised dominion and control over the items or that she
knew the items were stolen. We disagree.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 3
{¶7} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "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." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). On
review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine 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 jury 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. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). See
also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. The granting of a new trial
"should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily
against the conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶8} Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
2913.51 which states: "No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained
through commission of a theft offense."
{¶9} Two items were recovered from a pawnshop, a camera and a ring. T. at
78. The items belonged to Donna Cole. Id. Mrs. Cole testified appellant admitted to her
that Mrs. Cole's daughter, Amanda, gave her the items and she and Amanda split the
proceeds from pawning the items. T. at 77-78, 85, 87. Mrs. Cole testified the camera
was in plain view in her home, and appellant knew the camera belonged to her because
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 4
Mrs. Cole had used it to take pictures of appellant. T. at 75, 97. Mrs. Cole's significant
other, Geary Cole, testified appellant admitted to him that Amanda took the items and
she [appellant] pawned the items. T. at 108.
{¶10} The physical evidence demonstrates appellant identified herself as the
"pledgor" of the items. T. at 124, 136-137; State's Exhibit 2. The videotape of the
transaction demonstrates appellant presented the items to the pawnshop clerk, signed
the pawn ticket, and received the money from the clerk. T. at 124, 144; State's Exhibit 4.
{¶11} We find appellant's admissions, coupled with the videotape of the
transaction and the pawn ticket, constitute sufficient credible evidence of appellant
exerting dominion and control over the items and that she knew the items were stolen.
{¶12} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
III
{¶13} Appellant claims cumulative error warranting reversal. Given our ruling in
Assignments of Error I and II, we find this assignment to be moot.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 5
{¶14} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
SGF/sg 927