[Cite as State v. Fields, 2019-Ohio-2252.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: 

 Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J 

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- 

 Case No. 2018CA00159 

BRANDON MALIK FIELDS 

 

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 

2018CR1152(C) 

 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 6, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO BERNARD L. HUNT 

Stark County Prosecuting Attorney 2395 McGinty Road, N.W. 

 North Canton, Ohio 44720 

KRISTINE BEARD 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

110 Central Plaza South – Ste. #510 

Canton, Ohio 44702 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 2 

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Brandon Malik Fields appeals the judgment entered by the Stark 

County Common Pleas Court convicting him of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)) and assault 

(R.C. 2903.13(A)) and sentencing him to an aggregate term of incarceration of six years. 

Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} Diana Johnson met Sean Jefferson through an online dating service in early 

May, 2018. They frequently talked and hung out together thereafter. Diana attended a 

party at her cousin’s duplex on May 23, 2018. She called Sean to ask him to come to the 

party in the 3100 block of Kalahari St. in Canton, Ohio. She asked him to bring her a 

Black and Mild cigarette and to park behind the duplex, near a dumpster. 

{¶3} Sean arrived between 6:30-7:00 p.m., and parked where instructed. Diana 

was outside waiting for him. He gave her the Black and Mild, which she smoked outside. 

She told Sean smoking was not permitted at the party. While standing outside, Sean saw 

a man approaching from the left, and two men approaching from the other direction. Sean 

had a bad feeling about the situation. 

{¶4} According to Diana, two men, Kevin Proctor and Appellant, who she knew 

as “Mozzy,” were at the party and approached her and Sean outside. Proctor asked Sean 

for a cigarette. Sean told Proctor he didn’t smoke. Proctor then asked for a “buck.” Tr. 

132. Sean said he didn’t have a buck, but he had hundreds, referring to money. Proctor 

and Sean started to walk to Sean’s car, when Proctor threw Sean to the ground. Appellant 

kicked Sean several times, and Proctor punched Sean. When Diana ran to kick Proctor, 

Appellant picked her up and slammed her to the ground. She got up and ran to her 

mother’s house. Before she left, she saw keys in Proctor’s hand. 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 3 

{¶5} According to Sean’s recollection of the evening, one of the men who 

approached him outside asked for money. Sean replied he didn’t have any money. The 

man told Sean he needed a “band,” or one thousand dollars. Tr. 175. Sean walked to 

his car to get a crow bar for protection. As he was walking, he was thrown to the ground 

and kicked by two men – one wearing boots, and one wearing gym shoes. The men 

kicked Sean multiple times. He did not recognize any of the men. He lost consciousness, 

and woke up as the men were attempting to use the fingers of his left hand to unlock his 

cell phone. While lying on the ground, he saw Diana walk away. After the men left in his 

car, Sean got up and walked toward the road. A girl stopped to help him. He next woke 

up in the back of an ambulance. The men who assaulted him took his wallet, cell phone, 

keys, and rental vehicle. Sean was not able to identify Appellant nor Proctor. 

{¶6} Detective Joseph Pileggi of the Canton Police Department was assigned to 

the case. In speaking with Sean, he learned Sean believed Diana set him up for the 

robbery. Detective Pileggi’s attempts to contact Diana were unsuccessful. Det. Pileggi 

issued a warrant for Diana’s arrest for complicity to commit robbery, and she was arrested 

by a U.S. Marshall in June of 2018. 

{¶7} Diana identified Proctor to Det. Pileggi by name. She told the detective the 

other man went by the name “Mozzy Mac” on Facebook, and his first name was Brandon. 

Det. Pileggi circulated a photograph of the man Diana knew as Mozzy around the police 

department, and a patrol officer identified the man as Appellant. Diana identified photos 

of both men. 

{¶8} Sean’s rental vehicle was recovered two weeks later. Two juveniles were 

arrested in conjunction with the stolen vehicle. 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 4 

{¶9} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury with complicity with 

Kevin Proctor and Diana Johnson in the commission of robbery and assault. Appellant 

and Proctor were tried jointly by jury trial in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. 

Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years incarceration for robbery 

and thirty days incarceration for assault, to be served concurrently. 

{¶10} It is from the October 5, 2018 judgment of conviction and sentence 

Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error: 

THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF GUILT WAS AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED 

BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. 

{¶11} Appellant argues the judgment of conviction is against the manifest weight 

and sufficiency of the evidence because Diana Johnson’s testimony was inconsistent and 

self-serving, and therefore not credible. He also argues Det. Pileggi’s investigation was 

faulty because he failed to examine the recovered rental vehicle for DNA and fingerprint 

evidence. 

{¶12} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record, 

weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, 

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘clearly lost its way and 

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 5 

a new trial ordered.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 

N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983). 

{¶13} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 

is to determine 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, 

paragraph two of the syllabus (1991). 

{¶14} Appellant was convicted of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), which 

provides: 

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in 

fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the 

following: 

(2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on 

another[.] 

{¶15} He was also convicted of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), which 

states, “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or 

to another's unborn.” 

{¶16} Appellant argues the only person who identified him as one of the men 

involved in the theft and assault on Sean Jefferson was Diana Johnson, and her testimony 

was inconsistent, self-serving, and therefore not credible. He argues based on the lack 

of credibility of her identification testimony, the judgment is against the manifest weight 

and sufficiency of the evidence. 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 6 

{¶17} Diana identified Appellant and Proctor as the two men involved in the 

assault and robbery. She had previously identified the men to police, naming Proctor and 

stating she knew Appellant by the name “Mozzy.” After police identified “Mozzy” as 

Appellant, she was able to identify both men from photographs presented to her by 

Detective Pileggi. Her identification testimony was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to 

support the convictions of robbery and assault. 

{¶18} Further, we find the jury did not lose its way in finding her testimony credible 

as to the identification of Appellant as one of the men involved in the assault and robbery 

of Sean Jefferson. The jury was made aware of the inconsistencies between her 

testimony and Sean’s testimony, and further was aware she previously told police a third 

man was present, who tried to break up the assault. The jury was aware she was charged 

as an accomplice in the incident. Counsel for Appellant and Proctor criticized her actions 

in running from the scene, failing to call the police, and refusing to talk to police until she 

was arrested for the crime. In spite of the concerns placed before the jury concerning her 

credibility, the jury chose to believe her identification testimony. Because the trier of fact 

is in a better position than this Court to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh their 

credibility, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for 

the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d 212, 

paragraph one of the syllabus (1967). 

{¶19} Appellant also argues the judgment is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because Det. Pileggi failed to process Sean’s rental car for fingerprints and DNA 

after the car was recovered. Det. Pileggi testified the car was recovered two weeks after 

the incident, in the hands of two juveniles who gave no information as to how they 
Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00159 7 

received the car. He testified the car was not processed because in his experience, a 

stolen vehicle may change hands four to five times a night. Tr. 238. He further testified 

because the car was a rental, it would have the prints and DNA from many people present 

inside. Tr. 239. From his testimony the jury could conclude processing the car for prints 

and DNA in an attempt to link Appellant to the stolen vehicle would have been a fruitless 

venture. We find the lack of scientific evidence linking Appellant to the car does not render 

the judgment against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶20} The assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶21} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur