[Cite as State v. Brown , 2021-Ohio-1249.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

-vsEDWARD BROWN Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 2020 CA 0054

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Comm on Pleas, Case No. 2019 CR 0933

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 9, 2021

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant GARY BISHOP TODD W. BARSTOW PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 261 West Johnstown Road JOSEPH C. SNYDER Suite 204 ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Columbus, Ohio 43230 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 2
Wise, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Edward Brown (“Appellant”) appeals his conv iction in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for one count of Esca pe, in violation of R.C. 2921.34. Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts lead ing to this appeal are as follows. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On March 10, 2017, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Robber y, a felony of the second degree, in the Richland County Court of Common Pl eas and was sentenced to two years in prison. {¶3} On October 15, 2018, Appellant was released from prison. The ne xt day Officer Mayer went over the rules Appellant must follow while o n post release control. The rules included that Appellant must participate in the Reentry C ourt Program in Richland County. Officer Mayer warned Appellant that if he left the EXIT program without approval, it could result in criminal charges. Appellant then signed his name to the form. {¶4} In February of 2019, Appellant was placed with the Volunteers o f America with the permission of Officer Mayer. Appellant eventually move d out of the Volunteers of America facility to live with h is girlfriend in Shelby, Ohio. {¶5} On July 31, 2019, Appellant notified Officer Mayer of his desir e to change residences. Appellant provided Officer Mayer with a list of pot ential residences. Officer Mayer wanted to look into a change of residence and set up a re port date of August 7, 2019.Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 3 {¶6} On August 7, 2019, Appellant did not appear for the meeting and did not contact Officer Mayer by phone. Appellant notified his supervis or and then attempted to locate Appellant. {¶7} Officer Mayer first went to the first address on the list, and the resident had no idea who Appellant was. The next address Officer Mayer went to was Appellant’s sister’s house. No one at that residence would identify themsel ves to Officer Mayer. Finally, Officer Mayer checked at Appellant’s girlfriend’s hous e in Shelby, Ohio, and the girl friend confirmed Appellant was no longer living there. {¶8} On August 22, 2019, Officer Mayer had Appellant classified as a Parole Violator at Large. {¶9} On September 30, 2019, Appellant was arrested. {¶10} On November 7, 2019, Appellant was indicted in the Richland Cou nty Court of Common Pleas with Escape, a felony of the fifth degree, in v iolation of R.C. 2921.34. {¶11} On February 12, 2020, Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. {¶12} On June 2, 2020, Appellant proceeded to trial and was found gui lty. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven months in prison to r un consecutive to 600 days for violating post-release control. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶13} On July 29, 2020, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the following Assignment of Error: {¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF ESCAPE ASRichland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 4

THAT VERDICT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS ALSO AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” I. {¶15} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the c onviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not supporte d by sufficient evidence. We disagree. {¶16} Sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence are separate and distinct legal standards. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380. Essentially, sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Id . A sufficiency of the evidence standard requires the appellate court to examine the evidence admitted at trial, in t he light most favorable to the prosecution, to determine whether such evidence, if believed, w ould convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

. State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259. {¶17} In contrast to the sufficiency of evidence analysis, when revie wing a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court reviews the entir e record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibili ty of witnesses and determines whether in resolving c onflicts of evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the convict ion must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380. {¶18} Under a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court wi ll consider the same evidence as when analyzing Appellant’s sufficiency of evidence argument. Appellant argues the jury clearly lost its way as their convict ion of Appellant based on the total weight of the evidence was a manifest miscarriage of just ice.Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 5 {¶19} The State indicted Appellant on one count of Escape in violatio n of R.C. 2921.34. {¶20} R.C.2921.34(A)(3) states: No person, knowing the person is under supervised release detention or being reckless in that regard, shall purposely bre ak or attempt to break the supervised release detention or purposely fail to return to the supervised release detention, either following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period, or at the time required w hen serving a sentence in intermittent confinement. {¶21} R.C. 2921.34(D) states: As used in this section, “supervised release detention” means detention that is supervision of a person by an employee of the department of rehabilitation and correction while the person is on any typ e of release from a state correctional institution, other than transitional control under section 2967.26 of the Revised Code or placement in a community -based correctional facility by the parol e board under section 2967.28 of the revised code. {¶22} R.C. 5149.02, in pertinent part states, “[t]here is hereby crea ted in the division of parole and community services of the department of rehabilitation and correction at bureau level an adult parole authority.” {¶23} Appellant’s argument contends that Officer Mayer testified he w as employed at Adult Parole Authority, but did not state that he w as an employee of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 6 {¶24} At trial the state produced evidence that Appellant was serving a term of post release control, included as “supervised release detention ” in R.C. 2921.34(D). Appellant was required to be supervised by an employee of the D epartment of Rehabilitation and Correction. Off icer Mayer identified himself as an employee of Adult Parole Authority, which, according R.C. 5149.02, is a division of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. {¶25} We find the State presented sufficient evidence, if believed by a jury, that Appellant escaped from supervised release detention. Our review of the entire record fails to persuade us the jury lost its way and created a manifest mis carriage of justice. Appellant was not convicted against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶26} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. {¶27} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, J. Baldwin, P. J., and Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/d 0406