[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 Common 

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 44902 
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Edward Brown (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction in 

the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for one count of Escape, in violation of R.C. 

2921.34. Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as 

follows. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On March 10, 2017, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Robbery, a felony 

of the second degree, in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas and was sentenced 

to two years in prison. 

{¶3} On October 15, 2018, Appellant was released from prison. The next day 

Officer Mayer went over the rules Appellant must follow while on post release control. The 

rules included that Appellant must participate in the Reentry Court 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 of America 

with the permission of Officer Mayer. Appellant eventually moved out of the Volunteers of 

America facility to live with his girlfriend in Shelby, Ohio. 

{¶5} On July 31, 2019, Appellant notified Officer Mayer of his desire to change 

residences. Appellant provided Officer Mayer with a list of potential residences. Officer 

Mayer wanted to look into a change of residence and set up a report 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 supervisor 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 themselves to Officer Mayer. 

Finally, Officer Mayer checked at Appellant’s girlfriend’s house 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 County Court 

of Common Pleas with Escape, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation 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 guilty. The 

trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven months in prison to run 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 AS 
Richland 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 conviction is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not supported 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 the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would 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 reviewing a weight 

of the evidence argument, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighing the 

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

determines whether in resolving conflicts of 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380. 

{¶18} Under a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court will consider 

the same evidence as when analyzing Appellant’s sufficiency of evidence argument. 

Appellant argues the jury clearly lost its way as their conviction of Appellant based on the 

total weight of the evidence was a manifest miscarriage of justice. 
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0054 5

{¶19} The State indicted Appellant on one count of Escape in violation 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 break 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 when 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 type 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 parole board under section 2967.28 of the revised 

code. 

{¶22} R.C. 5149.02, in pertinent part states, “[t]here is hereby created 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 was 

employed at Adult Parole Authority, but did not state that he was 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 Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction. Officer 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 miscarriage 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