[Cite as State v. Dettwiller, 2022-Ohio-134.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HIGHLAND COUNTY
State of Ohio, : Case No. 21CA10
Plaintiff-Appellee, : DECISION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
v. :
Joshua J.J. Dettwiller, : RELEASED 1/13/2022
Defendant-Appellant. :
______________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Bryan Scott Hicks, Lebanon, Ohio, for appellant.
Anneka P. Collins, Highland County Prosecutor, and Adam J. King, Assistant Highland
County Prosecutor, Hillsboro, Ohio, for appellee.
______________________________________________________________________
Hess, J.
{¶1} Joshua J.J. Dettwiller appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for two
counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle. In his sole assignment of error, Dettwiller
contends that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the
manifest weight of the evidence. However, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And after
weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considering the credibility of the
witnesses after according the requisite deference to the jury’s determinations, we
conclude that in resolving evidentiary conflicts, the jury did not clearly lose its way or
create a manifest miscarriage of justice so that we must reverse its verdict. Accordingly,
we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Highland App. No. 21CA10 2
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The Highland County grand jury indicted Dettwiller on two counts of grand
theft of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), fourth-degree felonies. He
pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶3} Jami Green, Dettwiller’s aunt, testified that her mother, Amanda Kellis, owns
a group home in Greenfield, Ohio, for developmentally disabled women. Green resides
there with Kellis and helps care for the women. On December 5, 2020, Dettwiller called
Green and had her pick him up and bring him to Kellis’s home. He visited with Green and
Kellis for a few hours and left around 8:30 or 9:30 p.m., exiting through the front door.
The next morning, Kellis woke Green up because Kellis’s black Dodge Caravan was
missing. Green testified that there are multiple sets of keys for the van, and usually one
or two sets are kept on a coat rack by the front door. Green testified that no keys were
on the coat rack that morning but acknowledged she did not see Dettwiller take them or
check the keys when he left the night before. On December 14, 2020, Green spotted the
van parked in Hillsboro, Ohio. She flagged down an officer and let him know the van had
been stolen. The van was returned to Kellis but went missing again later that month. It
was returned a second time along with a set of keys. At some point, two other sets of
keys were found in Kellis’s home.
{¶4} Amanda Kellis, Dettwiller’s grandmother, testified that she does not drive
but became the owner of her husband’s black Dodge Caravan in 2018 when he died.
Kellis identified State’s Exhibit 2 as being a photograph of her van. She testified that in
early December 2020, Dettwiller visited her home and left around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. He
had not used her van before and did not request her permission to use it before he left.
Highland App. No. 21CA10 3
The next morning, Kellis noticed that the van was missing from the front of the house and
that the keys for it were missing from the coat rack where they are kept. Kellis testified
that there are two sets of keys to the van that work, one set that has “never been
programmed,” and one set that does not work. Kellis was not sure when she had last
seen the keys. Kellis contacted the police and reported the van missing. Later that month,
the van was found and returned to her, but no keys were returned with it. When asked
whether Dettwiller visited her again toward the end of December, Kellis testified that “[h]e
came earlier in the month and got his clothes that were there and his Christmas [sic], but
I didn’t see him.” On December 21, 2020, she noticed the van was missing again and
contacted the police. She did not give Dettwiller permission to use the van that day.
Later, the van was found and returned to her with a set of keys which had been missing
since December 5, 2020. Kellis “couldn’t say” who took the van. However, when asked
if she had given law enforcement any indication of who she thought had taken the van,
she testified that Dettwiller was “the only one that I could think of.”
{¶5} Officer Dylan Tharp of the Hillsboro Police Department testified that on
December 14, 2020, a female flagged him down regarding a stolen van. He ran the tags
and confirmed the van had been reported stolen by the Greenfield Police Department.
He did not locate any keys in or around the van but did not search the van or inventory
its contents. He identified State’s Exhibit 2 as being a photograph of the van he
recovered.
{¶6} Trooper James Brooks of the Ohio State Highway Patrol testified that on
December 25, 2020, around 11:00 a.m., he observed a black Dodge Caravan which
matched the description of a vehicle reported stolen by the Greenfield Police Department.
Highland App. No. 21CA10 4
He followed the van and saw it turn into a private drive. Trooper Brooks ran the registration
and confirmed the van was the stolen vehicle. He saw Dettwiller exit the vehicle, ordered
him to get down on the ground, and handcuffed him. Trooper Brooks found a key fob on
the ground where this occurred. Trooper Brooks identified State’s Exhibit 2 as being a
photograph of the van he recovered.
{¶7} Sergeant Mike Fryer of the Greenfield Police Department testified that on
December 6, 2020, he responded to a call about a suspected stolen vehicle. He spoke
with Kellis and Green who indicated a Dodge Caravan had been stolen. Someone told
him to be on the lookout for Dettwiller. Sergeant Fryer entered the van into the Law
Enforcement Automated Data System (“LEADS”) as stolen. He reviewed video footage
Green had from a Ring doorbell which showed the van leaving the area by the home but
not the driver. Sergeant Fryer testified that he was on patrol the night the van was taken
and had seen a man matching Dettwiller’s description—a white male with light hair—in
the van. Sergeant Fryer did not investigate at that time as he had no reason to believe
the van was being stolen. On December 18, 2020, a patrol officer notified Sergeant Fryer
that the van was back where it belonged, and Sergeant Fryer confirmed that fact and
learned the van had been removed from LEADS. On December 21, 2020, Sergeant Fryer
received another call from Green about the van and reentered it in LEADS as stolen.
Later, he learned Dettwiller had been arrested with the van and that a key had been
recovered. Kellis verified it was a key reported missing at the time of the first theft.
{¶8} Patrolman Mark Hamilton of the Greenfield Police Department testified that
on December 29, 2020, he transported Dettwiller to jail after court. Dettwiller was
confused about why he had been charged with two counts of theft for stealing the same
Highland App. No. 21CA10 5
vehicle and thought that was double jeopardy. Patrolman Hamilton explained that
Dettwiller had been charged with two counts because the vehicle had been taken on two
different occasions and that was not double jeopardy. Dettwiller said, “That’s bullshit.”
{¶9} The jury found Dettwiller guilty on both counts, and the trial court sentenced
him. This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶10} Dettwiller assigns one error for our review: “The verdict was against the
sufficiency of the evidence as well as against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
{¶11} In his sole assignment of error, Dettwiller contends that his convictions are
not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Dettwiller claims that the “only link” between him and the van is that he “was with the van
and had keys” to it on December 25, 2020. He asserts those facts “could potentially give
rise to a receiving stolen property charge,” but he was not indicted for that offense.
Dettwiller suggests that the jury could not reasonably infer from the events of December
25th that he took the van on December 5th or 6th and 21st because “there is quite a bit
of time between the two events,” there were “multiple sets of keys floating around,” “no
one knows when the various key sets were where,” no one saw him take the keys or the
van, and no one saw him at the home on December 21st. He also claims there is no
evidence his family considered him a suspect. Dettwiller maintains that “the jury lost its
way in extrapolating backwards from December 25 to conclusions that were not
substantially supported.”
Highland App. No. 21CA10 6
{¶12} In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, “[t]he 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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991),
paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds
as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and
following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). “A
sufficiency assignment of error challenges the legal adequacy of the state’s prima facie
case, not its rational persuasiveness.” State v. Anderson, 4th Dist. Highland No. 18CA14,
2019-Ohio-395, ¶ 13. “That limited review does not intrude on the jury’s role ‘to resolve
conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from
basic facts to ultimate facts.’ ” Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 243, 136 S.Ct.
709, 193 L.Ed.2d 639 (2016), quoting Jackson at 319.
{¶13} 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 reversal of the conviction
is necessary. In order to satisfy this test, the state must introduce
substantial evidence on all the elements of an offense, so that the jury can
find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although a court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial
court is sustained by sufficient evidence, that court may nevertheless
conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence. However,
we are reminded that generally, it is the role of the jury to determine the
weight and credibility of evidence. “ ‘A jury, sitting as the trier of fact, is free
to believe all, part or none of the testimony of any witness who appears
before it.’ ” State v. Reyes-Rosales, 4th Dist. Adams No. 15CA1010, 2016-
Ohio-3338, ¶ 17, quoting State v. West, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3507,
Highland App. No. 21CA10 7
2014-Ohio-1941, ¶ 23. We defer to the trier of fact on these evidentiary
weight and credibility issues because it is in the best position to gauge the
witnesses’ demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and to use these
observations to weigh their credibility.
(Citations omitted.) Anderson at ¶ 14-15.
{¶14} The prosecution may establish the elements of an offense by “ ‘direct
evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. Circumstantial and direct evidence are of
equal evidentiary value.’ ” (Citation omitted in Fannon.) State v. Fannon, 2018-Ohio-
5242, 117 N.E.3d 10, ¶ 100 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Swain, 4th Dist. Ross No.
01CA2591, 2002 WL 146204, *8 (Jan. 23, 2002). Circumstantial evidence is
“ ‘ “[t]estimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in
controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the
facts sought to be proved.” ’ ” (Alteration in Nicely.) State v. Dodson, 4th Dist. Ross No.
18CA3629, 2019-Ohio-1465, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 150, 529
N.E.2d 1236 (1988), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 221 (5th Ed. 1979).
{¶15} R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) states: “No person, with purpose to deprive the owner
of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or
services * * * [w]ithout the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent[.]”
“If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, a violation of this section is grand theft of a motor
vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree.” R.C. 2913.02(B)(5).
{¶16} Although no one witnessed Dettwiller take Kellis’s van, there is
circumstantial evidence that he knowingly obtained or exerted control over it on two
occasions without her consent and with purpose to deprive her of it. There is evidence
that Green gave Dettwiller a ride to Kellis’s home on December 5, 2020, and he left
around 8:30 or 9:30 p.m. At some point during the evening, Sergeant Fryer saw a man
Highland App. No. 21CA10 8
in the van who had some of the same features as Dettwiller, i.e., he was white and had
light hair. The next morning, Kellis discovered that the van was missing and noticed that
no keys for the van were in their usual spot on the coat rack by the front door which
Dettwiller had exited. When police recovered the stolen van on December 14, 2020, no
keys were recovered with it. The van went missing again on December 21, 2020. There
is some evidence Dettwiller went to the home around that time to pick up some items
although Kellis did not provide a precise date of when that occurred. Four days after the
second theft, Trooper Brooks caught Dettwiller driving the van even though he never had
permission to use it. There is evidence that at the time of Dettwiller’s arrest, he was in
possession of a key fob for the van which had been missing since the first theft.
{¶17} Based on the foregoing, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of grand theft of a motor vehicle proven beyond a reasonable doubt
with respect to both counts of the indictment. Moreover, in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the jury did not clearly lose its way and create such a manifest miscarriage of
justice that reversal of the convictions is necessary. Because sufficient evidence supports
the grand theft of a motor vehicle convictions and they are not against the manifest weight
of the evidence, we overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Highland App. No. 21CA10 9
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that appellant shall pay the
costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the HIGHLAND
COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is
temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted.
The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of
Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay
is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day
period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of
Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of
the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the
appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such
dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Smith, P.J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________
Michael D. Hess, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with
the clerk.