[Cite as State v. Stockbridge, 2018-Ohio-4809.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CITY OF ALLIANCE 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsSTEVEN WENDELL STOCKBRIDGE 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. 2018 CA 00106 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Alliance Municipal 

Court, Case No. 2018 CRB 00787 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Vacated 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 3, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

CAITLYN R. SCHNEIDER LATHAN J. LIPPERMAN 

JENNIFER ARNOLD 3360 Tremont Road 

ANGELIQUE RUHL Suite 230 

LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Columbus, Ohio 43221 

470 East Market Street 

Alliance, Ohio 44601 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 2

Wise, John, P. J. 

{¶1} Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge appeals his conviction on one count 

of violating Alliance Municipal Ordinance §1-765.04. 

{¶2} Appellee is the City of Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 

{¶3} For purposes of this Opinion which has been assigned to the accelerated 

docket, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: 

{¶4} On June 9, 2018, Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge was standing on 

the sidewalk outside of the public library collecting signatures for an initiative - petition 

concerning a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution concerning reduced medical 

costs of dialysis for children. (T. at 20-24). Appellant was approached by Officer Cook, 

who asked him if he had secured a permit to collect signatures. Appellant told Officer 

Cook that he was advised by an attorney that he was not required to have a permit 

pursuant to the First Amendment. Id. 

{¶5} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City 

Ordinance §1.765.03 Permit, Registration, License Required Solicitation for “knowingly 

solicit[ing] signatures within the City of Alliance without a valid permit”. 

{¶6} On June 11, 2018, Appellant appeared for his arraignment and entered a 

plea of “not guilty”. 

{¶7} On June 11, 2018, shortly after his arraignment, Appellant was again 

standing on the sidewalk collecting petition signatures, this time outside of the Alliance 

Police Department, when he was approached by Lieutenant William Morris. Lt. Morris 

asked Appellant if he had a permit to collect the signatures, to which Appellant replied 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 3

that he did not. (T. at 25-26). 

{¶8} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City 

Ordinance §1.765.04 for “soliciting a residential neighborhood w/out a permit, on 

sidewalk, public.” 

{¶9} On July 2, 2018, a bench trial on both violations commenced in this matter. 

{¶10} At trial, the court heard testimony from Officer Amabeli, Officer Cook, 

Lieutenant Morris and Appellant, who represented himself. 

{¶11} Officer Cook testified that on June 9, 2018, he observed Appellant collecting 

signatures on public property, on the sidewalk, and that he did not have a permit from the 

City of Alliance. 

{¶12} Lt. Morris testified than on June 11, 2018, he observed Appellant speaking 

with Detective Minich outside of the police station. (T. at 26). Shortly thereafter he 

received a call from Det. Minich advising him that Appellant had solicited him to sign his 

petition. Id. Lt. Morris located Appellant outside of the station, on the sidewalk, and when 

he inquired as to whether Appellant had a permit to solicit signature in the City of Alliance, 

Appellant told him that he did not. (T.at 26, 28). He further testified that Appellant told 

him that he worked for a company which paid him to collect the signature. (T. at 27). 

{¶13} Both Officer Cook and Lt. Morris testified that a permit is required to solicit 

or petition for signatures within the City of Alliance. (T. at 23, 28). 

{¶14} At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of 

violating both ordinances. The trial court imposed a fine of $100 on each offense and 

ordered the fine reduced to $50 for each offense if Appellant obtained a permit to solicit 

or provided proof of exemption under the ordinances. 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 4

{¶15} Appellant now appeals, raising the following errors for review: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE MUNICIPAL 

ORDINANCE §1-765.04 WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY AND MANIFEST WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, OF THE OHIO 

CONSTITUTION. 

{¶17} “III. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE 

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE §1-765.03 VIOLATED AMENDMENTS ONE AND 

FOURTEEN TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.” 

I. 

{¶18} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction was not 

supported by the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. We agree. 

{¶19} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at 

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. 

Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). “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.” 

Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 

S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 

{¶20} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to 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 jury clearly 

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 5

be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 

N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–

Ohio–52, 678 N.E.2d 541. The granting of a new trial “should be exercised only in the 

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 

175. 

{¶21} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the 

witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 237 N.E.2d 

212 (1967). The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and 

credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.” 

Davis v. Flicking, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997–Ohio–260, 674 N.E.2d 1159. 

{¶22} As set forth above, Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating 

Alliance City Ordinance 765.04 SALES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED, which 

reads: 

No person shall on any public street, alley, drive, lane, thoroughfare, 

court, highway, boulevard or on the sidewalks thereof, solicit the sale of any 

merchandise, wares, goods, foods, periodicals or other article of value for 

present or future delivery. 

{¶23} Upon review, we do not find that the record supports a conviction under 

AOC §765.04, as Appellant was not soliciting the sale of merchandise or goods or other 

“article of value” as contemplated by the ordinance. Appellant was not “selling” anything. 

{¶24} While the City focuses on the fact that Appellant was ultimately paid by a 

third party for the signatures collected, such arrangement does not transform the act of 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 6

petitioning citizens for signatures on a ballot-initiative into a for-profit commercial sales 

transaction. 

{¶25} Finally, we find that the Alliance Codified Ordinance defines “solicitation” as 

follows: 

(a) For the purpose of this chapter "solicit" and "solicitation" means 

an unsolicited, person to person request, occurring on private property, 

without invitation, of money, credit, property, financial assistance or other 

thing of value on the plea or representation that the money, credit, property, 

financial assistance or other thing of value will be used for any purpose. 

(b) "Solicit" and "solicitation" also mean and include the following 

methods of securing money, credit, property, financial assistance or other 

thing of value on the plea or representation that it will be used for such 

purposes as herein defined: the unsolicited, person-to-person offer, attempt 

to sell or sale of, any advertisement, advertising space, book, card, chance, 

coupon, device, magazine membership, subscription, ticket or other product 

in connection with which any appeal is made, which occurs on private 

property without invitation, for any purpose or where the name of any person 

is used or referred to in any such appeal as an inducement or reason for 

making any statement is made that the whole or any part of the proceeds 

from any such sale will go or be donated to any charitable, religious, public 

purpose, or other not for profit non-commercial purposes. The Mayor or 

Police Chief may require individuals to disclose the foundation upon which 

they claim a nonprofit exempt status hereunder. 
Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 7

{¶26} Further, nowhere in the ordinance does it refer to a permit, license or 

registration requirement. 

{¶27} Based on the foregoing, we find that the City failed to prove that Appellant 

was engaged in solicitation for the sale of anything, and that his conviction was against 

the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶28} Appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained. 

II. 

{¶29} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction 

violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 

{¶30} Based on our disposition of Assignment of Error I, we will refrain from 

addressing Appellant’s second assignment of error. 

{¶31} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, we hereby reverse the 

decision of the Alliance Municipal Court and Appellant’s conviction under Alliance 

Codified Ordinance §765.04 is vacated. 

By: Wise, John, P. J. 

Delaney, J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur. 

 

JWW/d 1116