[Cite as State v. Thomas , 2020-Ohio-3538.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. HOWARD THOMAS Appellant C.A. No. 19CA011578

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 19CR100196
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 30, 2020

CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Howard Thom as, appeals from his conviction in the Lorain County Court of Common Pl eas. This Court affirms.
I. {¶2} Late one evening in February , the police received two phone cal ls from the area of Washington Avenue and Tower Boulevard in Lorain. The first cal l was from a homeowner who had spotted a man breaking into her shed. The second call was from a homeowner just to the south who had spotted a suspicious truck pulling in and out of drivew ays with its lights off. Several officers responded to the area t o investigate the two calls. {¶3} The officer who responded to th e shed break-in found one set of footprints in the fresh snow around the shed and followed them south to the area where the suspicious truck had been spotted. Meanwhile, another officer located the truck in question and executed a traffic stop. The truck contained two occupant s: the driver, Mr. Thomas, and his passenger. The officers2 identified the passenger as the man who broke into the shed bas ed on the tread pattern on his shoes and the homeowner’s identification of his appearance. Though M r. Thomas claimed that he was not involved with the break-in, the police determined that he a cted as the passenger’s accomplice. {¶4} Mr. Thomas was charged with one count of complicity to commit b reaking and entering, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A)/2923.03(A)(2). He wa ived his right to a jury, and a bench trial ensued. At its conc lusion, the trial court found h im guilty. The court sentenced him to one year of community control. {¶5} Mr. Thomas now appeals from his conviction and raises two assig nments of error for this Court’s review.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO. {¶6} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Thomas argues that his co nviction is based on insufficient evidence. This Court disagrees. {¶7} “Whether a conviction i s supported by sufficie nt evidence is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Williams , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24731, 2009-Ohio-6955, ¶ 18, citing State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry is wheth er the prosecution has met its burden of production by presenting suff icient evidence to sustain a conviction. Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J., concurring). For purposes of a sufficiency analysis, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not evaluate credibility, and we m ake all reasonable inferences in3

favor of the State. State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). The evidence is sufficient if it allows the trier of fact to reas onably conclude t hat the essent ial elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. {¶8} A person commits breaking and entering if he trespasses in an u noccupied structure “by force, stealth, or deception,” and “with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined in [R.C. 2913.01], or any felony.” R.C. 2911.13(A). Relevant to this appeal, complicity is established when a person acts with the level of culpability re quired for an offense in aiding or abetting in the commission of the offense. R.C. 2923.03(A)(2). “To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting * * *, the evidence must show that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperate d with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal.” State v. Johnson , 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001), syllabus. “Such intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime,” id. , and “the presence, companions hip, and conduct of the defendan t before and after the offense is committed.” In re T.K. , 109 Ohio St.3d 512, 2006-Ohio-3056, ¶ 13. {¶9} Officer Todd Hite testified that, at 11:14 p.m., he was dispatc hed to a home at the corner of Washington Avenue and Tower Boulevard because the hom eowner had seen a man breaking into her shed. The homeowner had seen the man walk we stbound on Tower Boulevard, so Officer Hite first drove around that area to look for anyone traveling on foot. When he failed to spot anyone, he circled back to the homeowner’s residence an d inspected the shed. He discovered one set of footprints in the fresh snow around the s hed and followed the tracks on foot. The tracks crossed Tower Boulevard and turned westbound before heading southbound on Washington Avenue toward Redhill Drive. Officer Hite testified that, as he followed the tracks, he received a report that another officer had stopped a suspici ous truck near the intersection of4 Washington Avenue and Tower Boulevard. Believing the truck was involved in the shed breakin, Officer Hite returned to the shed to investigate and speak with the homeowner. {¶10} Officer Hite testified that the shed had been secured with two locking mechanisms, both of which had been broken and left in front of the shed doo r. When he spoke with the homeowner, she was able to descri be the clothing of the man she saw breaking into her shed. That clothing description was consistent with the clothing worn by t he passenger who was riding in the truck that the police had stopped and, when given an opportunit y to view the passenger, the homeowner confirmed that he was the man she saw break into her shed. Officer Hite also testified that the tread pattern on the passenger’s shoes matched the tre ad pattern of the footprints in the snow leading away from the shed. {¶11} Officer Jesse Perkins also responded when dispatch released inf ormation about the break-in. He testified that he was en route to the scene when a second dispatch came through. The second dispatch concerned “a suspicious, dark-colored truck tha t had been pulling in and out of driveways with no lights on.” T he truck had been spotted on Re dhill Drive, which was one street south of the break-in location. Officer Perkins testified that his colleague, Officer Payne, was dispatched to that location and s topped the truck just before h e arrived. {¶12} Officer Perkins met Officer Payne near the corner of Washington Avenue and Tower Boulevard, where Officer Payne had stopped the truck. Of ficer Perkins testified that he was familiar with the truck’s passenger and was aware that he h ad a lengthy criminal history that included multiple thefts. He w as not familiar with the driver of the truck, Mr. Thomas, but spoke with him at the scene. Mr. Thomas indicated that he had been d riving around when his friend, the passenger, called him and asked for a ride. Meanwhile, the pas senger said he and Mr. Thomas had just been riding around drinking beers. Although Mr. Thomas de nied knowing anything about the5 shed break-in, he had no explanation as to why he was spotted i n the area of Redhill Drive. The police also failed to find the beer that the passenger claimed he and Mr. Thomas had been drinking. Officers repeatedly asked Mr. Thomas why he was in the area, bu t Mr. Thomas never provided them with any specific reason. O fficer Perkins described Redhi ll Drive as a short, secluded street that most drivers avoided unless they lived there. He testifie d that Mr. Thomas a nd the passenger kept going back and forth about what they were doing there, how they got there. First they went out driving around, then they were drinking bee r driving around * * * [t]hen [the passenger] called him for a ride, which is what Mr. Thomas said, * * * and then [the passenger] said “Well, my phone’s broken.” * * * So we were trying to figure out what they were doing together and why they weren’t telling the truth. The officer also testified that both Mr. Thomas and the passeng er said their cell phones were broken, so it was not clear to the officers how the passenger w ould have called Mr. Thomas for a ride. {¶13} Once he finished interviewing the homeowner, Officer Hite joine d his fellow officers at the truck and spoke with Mr. Thomas. He testified that Mr. Thomas claimed the passenger was his friend, but referred to the man as Rodney whe n his name was actually Ron. The police found tools on the passenger’s side floorboard of the tr uck, including a hammer, pliers, and wrenches. Mr. Thomas conceded that he owned the tools, and Off icer Hite believed the passenger might have used one or more of them to break the locks on the h omeowner’s shed. Officer Hite testified that the passenger’s footprints led down to Redhill D rive, where Mr. Thomas had been spotted pulling into one or more driveways with his headlights off. The officer stated that, when break-ins occur, it is common for thieves to have an accomplice waiting to pick them up in a designated area, often with t he vehicle’s lights off. {¶14} Apart from the tools the police found in Mr. Thomas’ truck, Off icer Hite testified that they also found a Craftsman lawn clippings bag that one mi ght attach to a lawnmower. He6 testified that the bag was on th e rear bench of the truck, conc ealed beneath a blue tarp. Although the bag had not been taken from the homeowner’s shed, Officer H ite indicated that it was the type of item people usually store in sheds. He stated that he found its presence in the truck unusual, given that it was the middle of winter. He also found unusual the fact that Mr. Thomas had a large flashlight lying on the rear bench of the truck next to the tar p. Based on the late hour, the suspicious mix of items in Mr. Thomas’ truck, his lack of a reasonable exp lanation for his presence in the area, the inconsistencies betwee n his and the passenger’s state ments, and his actions in waiting in his truck in the dark for the pa ssenger, the police determined that he was complicit in the breakin. {¶15} Mr. Thomas argues that his conviction is based on insufficient evidence because the evidence showed that he merely associated with the passenge r, not that he actively assisted or encouraged him. He notes that he was not parked on the same st reet where the break-in occurred and the passenger returned to his truck empty-handed, such that he had no way to know that it had occurred. He also notes that he complied with the police when they stopped his truck and asked him questions. Because there was no evidence that he aided or even knew about the break-in, Mr. Thomas argues, the S tate failed to prove tha t he was complicit in that crime. {¶16} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecuti on, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State proved, beyond a re asonable doubt, that Mr. Thomas aided or abetted the break-in here in by supporting, assisting, or cooperating with the passenger in the commission of the crime. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319; Johnson , 93 Ohio St.3d 240 at syllabus. “Ohio courts have recognized that ‘[c]omplicity or a iding and abetting may be established by overt acts of assi stance such as driving a getaw ay car * * *.’” (Alternation in original.) State v. Larry , 5th Dist. Holmes No. 15CA011, 2016-Ohio-829, ¶ 25, quoting State v.7
Landingham , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84715, 2005-Ohio-621, ¶ 14. Accord State v. Greene , 9th Dist. Summit No. 21795, 2004-Ohio-3944, ¶ 19. The State presen ted evidence that Mr. Thomas drove his truck to a secluded st reet near the scene of the brea k-in, repositioned the truck with its headlights off, and waited for the passenger. It presented evi dence that the passenger broke into the homeowner’s shed and then walked south to Redhill Drive to meet up with Mr. Thomas. It was after 11:00 p.m. at the time, and Mr. Thomas was unable to provide the police with any reasonable explanation for his presence in the area. He and th e passenger gave inconsistent statements on that point, and ne ither ever mentioned the passen ger exiting or returning to the truck on foot on Redhill Drive. Further, the police found several su spicious items in Mr. Thomas’ truck, including tools on the passenger’s side floorboard, a concealed lawn clippings bag, and a large flashlight. While the evidence against Mr. Thomas was circumst antial in nature, “[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probat ive value * * *.” Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Further, a suffic iency review commands the court to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d at 273. Upon review, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Mr. Thomas sha red the passenger’s intent and assisted him by acting as his getaway driver. Because the Stat e set forth sufficient circumstantial evidence in support of his conviction, Mr. Thomas’ argument lac ks merit. His first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE CONVICTIONS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. {¶17} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Thomas argues that his c onviction is against the manifest weight of the evi dence. This Court disagrees.8
{¶18} When considering whether a conviction is against the manifest w eight of the evidence, this Court must: review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolvin g conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created su ch a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten , 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). A reversal on this basis is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily again st the conviction. Id. , citing State
v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). {¶19} Mr. Thomas testified in his own defe nse. He claimed that, the day of the break-in, he repeatedly called a woman name d Laura about a tire he had gi ven to her boyfriend the week before. Mr. Thomas testified that Laura was “a friend of [a] f riend” and he had offered to give her boyfriend the tire for free. Even so, Mr. Thomas testified, La ura’s boyfriend had promised him some money and he hoped to collect the money that day. Mr. Tho mas testified that the passenger was staying with Laura and he met the passenger when he dropped off the tire at her home. According to Mr. Thomas, he called Laura at least five or six t imes the day of the break-in to check whether her boyfriend was home yet. He claimed that, when he c alled her again around 11:00 p.m., the passenger answered her cell phone. {¶20} Mr. Thomas testified that the passenger asked him for a ride. Because he was already planning to take a trip to the convenience store, he ag reed to pick up the passenger. He testified that the passenger directed him to Redhill Drive and had him park there. Mr. Thomas claimed that the passenger told him he needed to run into a fri end’s house and pick up some money. He further claimed that the passenger asked him to park several houses down from the friend’s house so that the man’s wife would not know the passenger was t here. Mr. Thomas testified that he pulled into a driveway to tur n his truck around before parki ng on the street to wait for the9 passenger. He claimed that he turned off his headlights as a c ourtesy to the homeowners because it was dark outside. {¶21} Mr. Thomas testified that he wa ited about ten minutes for the p assenger to return. When the passenger did so, he tol d Mr. Thomas that his friend d id not have money for him after all and they started to leave the area. Mr. Thomas testified t hat he was surprised when the police stopped his truck shortly thereafter because he did not know an ything about the break-in. He agreed that the tools in the truck were his, but claimed that h e always kept some tools in the truck. {¶22} Mr. Thomas acknowledged that he did not tell the police about L aura or about agreeing to give the passenger a ride so that he could pick up money from a friend. He further acknowledged that he failed to p rovide his attorney with that i nformation in advance of trial so that the State might have the opportunity to contact Laura or h er boyfriend. Mr. Thomas could not recall why he did not tell the police about Laura or his reason for being on Redhill Drive that evening. It was his testimony that the police never asked and that things happened too quickly. {¶23} Mr. Thomas argues that his conviction is against the manifest w eight of the evidence because the evidence tended to show that he was merely present on the evening of the break-in. He notes that, unlike the passenger, he had no crimi nal history. Further, he notes that the police never found any items from the shed in his truck or other direct evidence to tie him to the break-in. Because he was convicted for merely associating with the passenger, Mr. Thomas argues, the trier of fact lost its way when it convicted him. {¶24} Having reviewed the record, th is Court cannot conclude that the trier of fact clearly lost its way when it found Mr. Thomas guilty of complicity to c ommit breaking and entering. See
Otten , 33 Ohio App.3d at 340. Although Mr. Thomas offered an explan ation for his behavior when testifying at trial, he failed to give any of that informa tion to the police on the night of the10 break-in. Instead, he told the police that he was driving arou nd when his friend called him for a ride. The trier of fact was in the best position to evaluate t he credibility of the witnesses and was “‘free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each w itness.’” State v. Clark , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 14AP0002, 2015-Ohio-2978, ¶ 24, quoting Prince v. Jordan , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 04CA008423, 2004-Ohio-7184, ¶ 35. Given Mr. Thomas’ behavior o n the evening of the breakin, the trier of fact reasonably could have concluded that his testimony was not truthful. Mr. Thomas has not shown that this is the exceptional case where th e evidence weighs heavily against his convictions. See Otten at 340. As such, this Court rejects his argument that his con viction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mr. Thomas’ secon d assignment of error is overruled.
III. {¶25} Mr. Thomas’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment o f the Lorain County Court of Comm on Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitu te the mandate, pursuant to Ap p.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to11 mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

LYNNE S. CALL AHAN FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assi stant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.