[Cite as State v. Ricks, 2012-Ohio-1645.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 97369

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

 LONELL RICKS

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-545975 

BEFORE: Stewart, J., Blackmon, A.J., and Jones, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 12, 2012 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Robert A. Gaffney 

Gaffney Law Offices, LLC 

75 Public Square, Suite 714 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: James M. Rice 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
MELODY J. STEWART, J.: 

{¶1} The court found defendant-appellant Lonell Ricks guilty of compelling 

prostitution in violation of R.C. 2907.21(A)(2). That section prohibits anyone from 

soliciting a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire. The sole question presented in 

this appeal is whether an offer of cash to lick the victim’s body constituted an act of 

sexual activity for purposes of the statute. We find that it does and affirm the conviction. 

{¶2} R.C. 2907.21(A)(2) states that no person shall knowingly “[i]nduce, procure, 

encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate * * * [a] minor to engage in sexual 

activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor[.]” The term 

“sexual activity” is defined in R.C. 2907.01(C) to encompass both “sexual conduct” and 

“sexual contact.” As relevant here, sexual contact means “any touching of an erogenous 

zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, 

if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either 

person.” R.C. 2907.01(B). 

{¶3} The 17-year-old victim testified that Ricks approached her in a shopping mall 

and told her that he would “give me $500 or $600 if he could lick my body.” She 

refused the offer. Ricks became annoyed and persisted in telling her that “it would be 

fun and that he kept saying that he would give [the victim] $500, $600[.]” Eventually, 

Ricks told the victim that he was going home to take a shower and that he would return. 
The victim then alerted a police officer to what transpired. She was told that if he 

returned, she should seek police assistance. 

{¶4} Ricks returned to the mall later that day. He again questioned the victim as 

to whether she would leave with him. She told him that she would go with him and 

suggested they take the rapid transit because she knew there were police officers at the 

rapid station. When they arrived at the rapid transit station, she alerted a police officer 

who then detained Ricks. 

{¶5} We determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict by 

examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determining 

whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio 

St.3d 227, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216, at ¶ 78, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 

{¶6} The court heard sufficient evidence from which it concluded that Ricks’s 

offer to lick the victim’s “body” included erogenous zones and thus fell within the 

definition of “sexual activity.” Ricks’s persistence in offering the victim money and his 

statement that he was going home to shower before coming back reasonably implied that 

he was seeking a sexual encounter with her. Ricks argues his offer to lick the victim’s 

body was too vague to encompass her erogenous zones, but the court could reasonably 

reject that argument. Ricks said that he wanted to lick the victim’s “body,” a term that 

the court could reasonably find encompassed her erogenous zones, particularly given the 
sexual nature of Ricks’s discourse with the victim and the amount of money he was 

offering. Put differently, it would have been unreasonable for the court to find on the 

evidence that Ricks was offering to pay $500 to lick non-erogenous zones. The court 

had no reason to think that Ricks was somehow going to limit himself to licking 

non-erogenous zones, so it reasonably concluded from the evidence that Ricks’s offer of 

cash for the opportunity to lick the entirety of the victim’s “body” was an attempt to 

engage in sexual activity for hire.1

{¶7} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga 

County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The 

defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 

Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 1

Ricks also argues that the court’s judgment of conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, but fails to make a separate argument, choosing instead to base his argument on the reasons 

given in support of his argument that the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence. This 

does not comply with an appellant’s obligation to separately argue each assignment of error. See

App.R. 12(A)(2); State v. Judd, 8th Dist. No. 89278, 2007-Ohio-6811, ¶ 46. 
 

 

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR