[Cite as State v. Halcomb, 2013-Ohio-1301.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SENECA COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-12-13 

 v. 

ODIA HALCOMB, JR., O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 11-CR-0228 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: April 1, 2013 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Jonathan G. Stotzer for Appellant 

Derek W. DeVine and Rhonda L. Best for Appellee 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-2- 

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Odia Halcomb, Jr. (“Halcomb”), appeals the 

judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas journalizing his 

conviction by a jury for aggravated burglary and ordering him to pay restitution. 

{¶2} On March 7, 2011, Halcomb’s step-mother, Donna Halcomb 

(“Donna”), received multiple phone calls from her brother-in-law, Dominic 

Buccione (“Dominic”), concerning a letter his wife, Cheryl Buccione (“Cheryl”) , 

received regarding one of Donna’s student loans. The letter indicated that Donna 

had listed Cheryl as a reference and could not be located. The letter sought 

Cheryl’s assistance in obtaining Donna’s forwarding information. Cheryl is 

Donna’s sister and by all accounts Donna and Cheryl do not get along. The record 

indicates that the conversations between Dominic and Donna led to a heated 

exchange of words. 

{¶3} After her conversations with Dominic, Donna picked up Halcomb and 

drove to the Buccione’s home to retrieve the letter. Upon answering the door, 

Cheryl and Dominic told Donna and Halcomb to leave. Nevertheless, a physical 

altercation ensued between the parties on the front porch, which resulted in Cheryl 

being thrown from the porch. Dominic went back into his home to get a baseball 

bat. Halcomb entered the home and seized the bat from Dominic. The scuffle 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-3- 

between Dominic and Halcomb continued into the home. Then, at Donna’s 

direction, Halcomb took a piece of mail from a table inside the home and left. 

{¶4} Cheryl and Dominic each suffered injuries as a result of the incident. 

Cheryl was transported to the hospital by ambulance and was treated for a massive 

tissue contusion on her thigh. Dominic initially declined to go to the hospital for 

his injuries, but changed his mind after experiencing a great deal of pain. There, 

Dominic was treated for multiple minor injuries and a broken rib. 

{¶5} On October 20, 2011, the Seneca County Grand Jury indicted 

Halcomb on one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), 

(B), a first degree felony; one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(2), (D)(1)(a), a second degree felony; and one count of assault in 

violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), (C), a misdemeanor of the first degree. A jury trial 

was held on January 26, 27, and 30, 2012. At the end of the trial, the jury returned 

verdicts of not guilty on the felonious assault and assault charges. However, the 

jury also returned a verdict of guilty on the aggravated burglary charge and 

specifically found that Halcomb did not act in self-defense when he committed the 

aggravated burglary. 

{¶6} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on February 10, 2012. The 

trial court sentenced Halcomb to serve six years in prison and ordered Halcomb to 

pay restitution in the amount of $7,015.94, which included compensating Cheryl 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-4- 

and Dominic for the economic loss resulting from their injuries. Halcomb appeals 

from this judgment and raises the following assignments of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING RESTITUTION 

FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO PHYSICAL HARM CAUSED 

AS [HALCOMB] WAS SPECIFICALLY FOUND NOT 

GUILTY OF A PHYSICAL HARM TO EACH VICTIM, BY 

BEING FOUND NOT GUILTY OF COUNT TWO 

(FELONIOUS ASSAULT) & NOT GUILTY OF COUNT 

THREE (ASSAULT). 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II

THE VERDICT OF GUILTY TO AGGRAVATED 

BURGLARY BY THE JURY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND MUST BE REVERSED.

{¶7} For ease of discussion, we elect to discuss Halcomb’s assignments of 

error out of order. 

{¶8} In the second assignment of error, Halcomb claims that his conviction 

for aggravated burglary is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In 

determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a 

reviewing court must examine 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 the conviction must be 

reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-5- 

(1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A 

reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on 

matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. 

State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). 

{¶9} The jury convicted Halcomb of aggravated burglary in violation of 

R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), (B), which states in pertinent part: 

(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in 

an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately 

occupied portion of an occupied structure, when another person 

other than an accomplice of the offender is present, with purpose 

to commit in the structure or in the separately secured or 

separately occupied portion of the structure any criminal 

offense, if any of the following apply: 

(1) The offender inflicts, or attempts or threatens to inflict 

physical harm on another; 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated 

burglary, a felony of the first degree. 

{¶10} The following testimony relative to Halcomb’s conviction for 

aggravated burglary was elicited before the jury at trial. 

{¶11} In the prosecution’s case-in-chief, Dominic testified that not long 

after he spoke to Donna on the phone, Donna and Halcomb arrived at his home 

around 7:00 p.m. Dominic recalled that when he answered the door he noticed 

that Donna was irate, but that Halcomb remained quiet. Dominic maintained that 

he stood in the doorway and told Donna and Halcomb to leave. When they failed 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-6- 

to do so, Cheryl came to the front door to confront her sister. Dominic testified 

that Halcomb grabbed Cheryl, threw her off the front porch, and forced his way 

into the home. Dominic testified that, in an act of self-defense, he grabbed a 

baseball bat from a room adjacent to the front door. Dominic recalled seeing 

Halcomb come after him in the house and then he “went down.” (Trans. at 123). 

{¶12} Dominic explained that he momentarily passed out and that when he 

regained consciousness he saw Halcomb in the kitchen with his bat. Dominic 

recalled that he tried to grab the bat from Halcomb, but Halcomb “started 

jamming” the bat at him. (Id.). Dominic stated that he was crouched down near 

the couch and attempted to pick up his phone from the coffee table to call 9-1-1, 

but Halcomb tried to wrestle the phone away from him. 

{¶13} Dominic stated he then yelled to Cheryl, who was now in the 

kitchen, to call 9-1-1. He recalled Halcomb approaching Cheryl and attempting to 

wrestle the phone from her. Dominic remembered hearing Donna yell to 

Halcomb, “Get the mail. Get the mail.” Dominic testified he saw Halcomb take 

mail from the kitchen table and then leave the house with his bat. Dominic 

testified that as a result of Halcomb’s conduct that night he received multiple 

bruises on his arms and on the side of his head, and that his rib was also broken. 

{¶14} Cheryl also provided testimony for the prosecution. Cheryl testified 

that after Dominic answered the door, she approached the doorway, and observed 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-7- 

Donna screaming at Dominic. Cheryl stated that she told Donna to get off of her 

property. Cheryl recalled that she went to step forward and Halcomb grabbed her 

leg and threw her off the front porch.1

 Cheryl maintained that she did nothing to 

provoke Halcomb’s conduct. 

{¶15} Cheryl testified that after getting up from the ground, she went into 

the house to call 9-1-1 and observed Dominic kneeling by the couch. She 

remembered seeing Dominic’s bat in Halcomb’s hand. Cheryl testified that she 

saw Halcomb hit Dominic with the bat and then try to take his phone. She 

testified that Halcomb then approached her and tried to grab the phone from her. 

Cheryl recalled hearing Donna yell “Get the mail,” “Get the mail,” while she 

struggled with Halcomb. She stated that after Halcomb was unsuccessful in taking 

her phone, he took some mail and left. Cheryl testified she suffered massive tissue 

damage as a result of Halcomb throwing her from the front porch. 

{¶16} Another witness for the prosecution was Lt. Aaron Russell of the 

Tiffin Police Department. He testified that on the night of March 7, 2011, he 

received a call from dispatch stating that a man had thrown a woman off of a 

porch. After responding to the call, Lt. Russell testified that he spoke to both 

Dominic and Cheryl, who relayed their versions of the events to him. Lt. Russell 

recalled that Dominic was confused that night and could not remember the details 

 

1

 Testimony at trial indicated that the porch sat approximately a foot and a half off the ground and did not 

have railings. 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-8- 

of the incident2

 and, contrary to her testimony on the stand, Cheryl stated to Lt. 

Russell that night that she never actually saw Halcomb hit Dominic with the bat. 

{¶17} Lt. Russell testified that he took several pictures that night, which 

included images of scratches and bruises on Dominic’s body and images of the 

Buccione home in complete disarray with several pieces of furniture overturned. 

These pictures were admitted at trial and submitted to the jury. 

{¶18} Lt. Russell also testified that when he first confronted Donna she told 

him that she witnessed a neighbor barge into the Buccione home and knock 

Dominic down. She also claimed not to know the neighbor. When Lt. Russell 

spoke to Halcomb, Halcomb told Lt. Russell that he did not know about the 

incident, was never at the Buccione home, and that he had been home all day on 

the date in question except for going to lunch with Donna and his father. Both 

Donna and Halcomb later admitted on the stand that they lied to Lt. Russell when 

they made these statements. 

{¶19} Donna provided testimony for the defense. She testified that 

Dominic was harassing her over the phone that afternoon. Donna testified that she 

went to the Buccione home to retrieve the letter because she needed to give it to 

her Bankruptcy attorney. She explained that Halcomb accompanied her because 

she was taking him to pick up his laundry across town. 

 

2

 There was medical testimony at trial which indicated that Dominic had a blood-alcohol content of .178. 

Dominic admitted to drinking three and a half beers and taking some pain medication earlier that evening. 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-9- 

{¶20} Donna recalled knocking on the door multiple times before Dominic 

answered and rudely inquired who they were and why they were there. Donna 

testified that Cheryl came “flying to the door” and yelled at them to leave. (Trans. 

at 387). Donna testified that Cheryl attempted to kick Halcomb in the “private 

area” when Halcomb grabbed her leg and tried to stop her. (Id.). Donna recalled 

Cheryl then jumped on Halcomb’s back. Donna grabbed Cheryl and pulled her off 

of Halcomb, which resulted in Cheryl falling off of the front porch. 

{¶21} Donna remained on the front porch while Halcomb was inside the 

home. She claimed that she did not see what happened inside the home because 

she was with Cheryl on the front porch. She admitted to screaming “give me my 

F’ing letter.” (Trans. at 388). She remembered seeing Dominic with the bat 

initially, but then Halcomb performed a “wrestling move—[l]ike a take-down” to 

get the bat away from Dominic. (Trans. at 391). Donna recalled Halcomb was 

still holding the bat when he exited the Buccione home. At that time, Donna 

remembered Halcomb stating to her “no idiot needs a bat.” (Trans. at 390). She 

testified that she and Halcomb simply left the house and went to pick up his 

laundry. 

{¶22} Halcomb also testified in his defense. He recalled Donna knocking 

on the Bucciones’ front door multiple times before Dominic answered. Halcomb 

remembered introducing himself to Dominic and Donna asking for her mail. 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-10- 

Halcomb testified “and that’s when Cheryl, out of nowhere, tries to field goal kick 

me in the balls.” (Trans. at 440). Halcomb recalled grabbing Cheryl by the ankle 

with both hands and pulling her down on the porch. Halcomb testified that 

Dominic then stated “you done fucked up” and pulled Halcomb inside the 

doorway. (Trans. at 441). Halcomb explained that he and Dominic engaged in a 

little tussle and he wrestled Dominic down to the ground. Halcomb admitted to 

hitting Dominic with his hands in self-defense. 

{¶23} Halcomb testified he attempted to leave the house when he saw 

Dominic with a baseball bat ready to swing at him. Halcomb explained that he 

then did a “Double A take-down” wrestling move on Dominic to take the bat away 

from him. (Trans. at 443). Halcomb denied entering the house past more than a 

few feet from inside the threshold. Halcomb also denied hitting or jabbing 

Dominic with the bat. Halcomb testified that while Dominic was still on the 

ground, he grabbed an envelope off a table next to the front door. Halcomb stated 

he then walked out the door, threw the baseball bat in the yard and left.3

{¶24} On appeal, Halcomb argues that he cannot be found guilty of 

committing aggravated burglary, without also being found guilty of committing 

assault and felonious assault. Thus, Halcomb contends that the disparate verdicts 

 

3

 Notably, Lt. Russell testified that the baseball bat was never recovered. 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-11- 

demonstrate that the jury clearly lost its way and that his conviction for aggravated 

burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶25} The Second District aptly stated the following regarding the 

legislative intent in broadening the offense of aggravated burglary from its 

common law roots: 

Since 1974, when the breaking-and-entering offenses were 

rewritten, there have been three burglary-type offenses: 

breaking and entering, burglary, and aggravated burglary. R.C. 

2911.11; 2911.12; 2911.13. Breaking and entering concerns the 

trespass of an unoccupied structure; burglary concerns 

trespassing in an occupied structure when someone other than 

an accomplice is likely to be present; and, as stated above, 

aggravated burglary adds the element that the offender inflicts 

or attempts to inflict physical harm or has a deadly weapon. 

The distinguishing factor among these offenses is “the relative 

potential for harm to persons,” with aggravated burglary 

carrying the greatest risk of harm. 1973 Legislative Service 

Commission Notes to R.C. 2911.11. 

In enacting the statutes proscribing these three offenses, the 

General Assembly removed distinctions between daytime and 

nighttime break-ins, the type of property entered, and the 

motive for entering. State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-

Ohio-2787, ¶ 66. The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined 

that “the General Assembly’s intent * * * was to broaden the 

concept of burglary from an offense against the security of the 

home to one against the security of persons who may be inside.” 

Gardner at ¶ 31. 

State v. Marriott, 189 Ohio App.3d 98, 2010-Ohio-3115, ¶¶ 27-28 (2d Dist.) 

(emphasis added). 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-12- 

{¶26} Halcomb’s argument on appeal runs contrary to the underlying 

principles of the aggravated burglary offense, which are that aggravated burglary 

is an offense against the security of the persons who may be inside a home and it 

is elevated from the other burglary offenses due to the high potential of harm to 

persons inside a home as a consequence of the defendant’s actions. Moreover, a 

comparison of the elements demonstrates that the aggravated burglary charged in 

this case was not predicated upon whether Halcomb knowingly caused or 

attempted to cause Cheryl physical harm or whether he knowingly caused or 

attempted to cause Dominic serious physical harm—which are each essential to 

proving the assault and felonious assault charges respectively. 

{¶27} In the instant case, the evidence establishes that Halcomb entered the 

Buccione home without permission and took personal property from a table inside 

of their home. The evidence also establishes that during Halcomb’s commission 

of this act, Cheryl and Dominic suffered physical harm. Notably, the jury 

specifically found that Halcomb did not act in self-defense when he committed the 

aggravated burglary. 

{¶28} In sum, there was ample evidence presented at trial for the jury to 

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Halcomb committed the offense of 

aggravated burglary. Furthermore, the jury’s verdict finding Halcomb committed 

aggravated burglary was not dependent on the jury also finding Halcomb 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-13- 

committed assault and felonious assault. Therefore, we conclude that the jury’s 

verdict convicting Halcomb of aggravated burglary is not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. Halcomb’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

First Assignment of Error

{¶29} Halcomb argues in the first assignment of error that the trial court 

erred in imposing restitution for the economic loss sustained by Dominic and 

Cheryl as a result of Halcomb’s commission of the aggravated burglary. Halcomb 

again argues that the jury verdicts finding him not guilty of assault and felonious 

assault prevent the trial court from ordering him to pay restitution for Cheryl’s and 

Dominic’s injuries. 

{¶30} Despite Halcomb’s contentions on appeal, we find that the jury 

verdict convicting Halcomb of aggravated burglary provided the trial court with an 

independent basis—regardless of whether separate assault and felonious assault 

charges were ever filed—to order Halcomb to pay restitution to Cheryl and 

Dominic for the economic loss stemming from the injuries they received as a 

result of Halcomb’s conduct constituting the aggravated burglary offense. 

{¶31} Revised Code Section 2929.18(A)(1) permits a trial court to order a 

convicted felon to make restitution to the victims of his crime “in an amount based 

on the victim’s economic loss.” Economic loss is defined by R.C. 2929.01(L) as, 

“any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and proximate result of 
Case No. 13-12-13 

-14- 

the commission of an offense and includes any loss of income due to lost time at 

work because of any injury caused to the victim, and any property loss, medical 

cost, or funeral expense incurred as a result of the commission of the offense.” 

Here, the prosecution presented competent credible evidence, by way of testimony 

and exhibits, of the actual economic loss suffered by Cheryl and Dominic as a 

result of Halcomb committing the aggravated burglary. Thus, restitution for their 

medical expenses and the loss of income due to lost time at work incurred as a 

consequence of the aggravated burglary is expressly authorized by R.C. 

2929.18(A)(1). Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s restitution order. 

Halcomb’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶32} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Seneca County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

 Judgment Affirmed 

PRESTON, P.J. concurs. 

WILLAMOWSKI, J., concurs in Judgment Only. 

/jlr