[Cite as State v. Perry, 2012-Ohio-5574.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 

V. 

MORRIS J. PERRY, SR., 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 CASE NO. 11-MA-129 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Youngstown 

Municipal Court of Mahoning County, 

Ohio 

Case No. 10CRB2557 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Dana Lantz 

Youngstown City Prosecutor 

John Henry Marsh, Jr. 

Assistant Youngstown City Prosecutor 

26 S. Phelps Street, 4th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Attorney Fred J. Rafidi 

3627 South Avenue 

Youngstown, Ohio 44502 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

 

 

 Dated: November 29, 2012 
[Cite as State v. Perry, 2012-Ohio-5574.]

DONOFRIO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Morris Perry Sr. appeals his conviction in the 

Youngstown Municipal Court for possessing criminal tools and attempted theft, 

following a bench trial. 

{¶2} On December 24, 2010, Jaron Greer and his mother, Brenda Greer, 

were at her home on 1256 Wilson Avenue in Youngstown, Ohio. Brenda also owned 

another home in Youngstown nearby at 364 South Truesdale that she had purchased 

from her mother with the intention of renovating it. Upon leaving the Wilson Avenue 

home ahead of his mother, Jaron noticed Perry at his mother’s South Truesdale 

property. Jaron observed Perry maneuvering a screwdriver behind the electrical 

meter attached to the house. Jaron confronted Perry about what he was doing. 

Brenda arrived shortly thereafter and also confronted Perry. Perry tried to conceal 

the screwdriver up his sleeve, picked up a black bag containing other tools, and 

attempted to leave the scene as police arrived. Officer Matthew Willis arrested Perry 

and took the screwdriver and black bag from him as evidence. 

{¶3} Police subsequently charged Perry with possessing criminal tools and 

attempted theft, both first-degree misdemeanors. R.C. 2923.24(A); R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1). The case proceeded to discovery and other pre-trial matters. 

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Perry guilty of possessing criminal tools 

as charged. As for the theft charge, the trial court found Perry guilty of the lesser 

included offense of attempted theft, a second-degree misdemeanor. R.C. 2923.02(A); 

R.C. 2913.02. The trial court sentenced Perry to ninety days house arrest with two 

years of probation and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 for each offense. This 

appeal followed. 

{¶4} Perry’s sole assignment of error states: 

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

TO SUPPORT A FINDING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT 

APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED THEFT AND 

POSSESSING CRIMINAL TOOLS. 
-2-

{¶5} Perry admits he was walking on a piece of property that did not belong 

to him on his way to work, but contends he was carrying the tools that were 

necessary for his occupation. He argues that there was no substantial step towards 

committing a theft offense. The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Brooks held that a 

criminal attempt occurs when there is an act or omission which constitutes a 

substantial step towards the commission of a crime and that a substantial step is one 

that strongly corroborated the actor’s criminal purpose. 44 Ohio St.3d 185, 542 

N.E.2d 636 (1989). Perry argues that even if his actions might have been suspicious 

to the Greers, suspicion is not enough to demonstrate a criminal purpose of depriving 

an owner of property. State v. Reed, 65 Ohio St.2d 117, 418 N.E.2d 1359 (1981). 

Perry also argues that aside from Jaron’s testimony that he was using the 

screwdriver to pry the meter off the house, there was no evidence that the 

screwdriver was being used as a criminal tool and, therefore, the charge should be 

dismissed. 

{¶6} In reply, the plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, argues this court should 

defer to the fact finding of the trial court unless it is found to be unreasonable. The 

State contends that the weight given to witnesses should be determined by the trier 

of facts. 

{¶7} R.C. 2923.24, possessing criminal tools, states, “No person shall 

possess or have under the person’s control any substance, device, instrument, or 

article, with purpose to use it criminally.” 

{¶8} R.C. 2913.02, theft, states: 

(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or 

services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property 

or services in any of the following ways: 

(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give 

consent[.] 
-3-

{¶9} R.C. 2923.03, attempt, states, “(A) No person, purposely or knowingly, 

and when purpose or knowledge is sufficient culpability for the commission of an 

offense, shall engage in conduct that, if successful, would constitute or result in the 

offense.” 

{¶10} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine 

whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a 

matter of law to support the jury verdict. State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113, 684 

N.E.2d 668 (1997). In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy. State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Whether the evidence 

is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. Id. In reviewing the record 

for sufficiency, the relevant inquiry is 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. Smith, 80 Ohio 

St.3d at 113, 684 N.E.2d 668. 

{¶11} At trial, Perry testified that he demolishes houses for a living. He 

testified that on the day he was arrested he was simply on his way to work when he 

saw Greer’s house and stopped to see if it was vacant or occupied. He stated: “I 

looked at the vacant house. I looked at the meter to see if anybody lived there.” (Tr. 

37). When asked why he was looking at the meter, Perry responded, “to see if it was 

available for rent or a lease or whatever.” (Tr. 40). Perry testified that he was not at 

the electrical meter, but could see it from where he was standing when confronted by 

the Greers. 

{¶12} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, Jaron 

Greer’s testimony that Perry was on Brenda Greer’s property maneuvering a 

screwdriver behind the electrical meter was sufficient to allow any rational trier of fact 

to find the essential elements of possessing criminal tools and attempted theft proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Perry claims that he was merely walking on a piece of 

property that he did not own. The evidence presented at trial challenged his 

credibility in that regard. Perry changed his testimony as to his proximity to the meter 
-4-

and what he was doing on the property. His own testimony vacillated from him not 

being at the meter to being near the meter to having never approached the meter. 

This testimony certainly called into question the credibility of the rest of his testimony 

denying any criminal motive. The presence of the screwdriver in his hand near the 

meter could be seen as a substantial step towards removing the meter from the 

house in the mind of a reasonable fact-finder. 

{¶13} Accordingly, Perry’s sole contention of error is without merit. 

{¶14} The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. 

Vukovich, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, J., concurs.