[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2016-Ohio-7287.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

TIFFANY WILSON : Case No. 2015CA00221 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal 

Court, Case No. 2015CRB04587 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 11, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

TASHA FORCHIONE PATRICK L. CUSMA 

218 Cleveland Avenue, SW 702 Courtyard Centre 

Canton, OH 44702 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW 

 Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 2 

Farmer, P.J. 

{¶1} On September 29, 2015, appellant, Tiffany Wilson, was charged with 

receiving stolen property (a camera and a ring) in violation of R.C. 2913.51. A jury trial 

was held on December 3, 2015. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By 

judgment entry filed December 8, 2015, the trial court sentenced appellant to one 

hundred eighty days in jail, all but thirty days suspended. 

{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶3} "THE VERDICT AGAINST APPELLANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE." 

II 

{¶4} "THE VERDICT AGAINST APPELLANT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE." 

III 

{¶5} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS A RESULT OF CUMULATIVE 

ERROR AND SHOULD BE REVERSED ACCORDINGLY." 

I, II 

{¶6} Appellant claims her conviction for receiving stolen property was against 

the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence as the state failed to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that she exercised dominion and control over the items or that she 

knew the items were stolen. We disagree. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 3 

{¶7} 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 (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 (1979). 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 be reversed and 

a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). See 

also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. 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. 

{¶8} Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 

2913.51 which states: "No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another 

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained 

through commission of a theft offense." 

{¶9} Two items were recovered from a pawnshop, a camera and a ring. T. at 

78. The items belonged to Donna Cole. Id. Mrs. Cole testified appellant admitted to her 

that Mrs. Cole's daughter, Amanda, gave her the items and she and Amanda split the 

proceeds from pawning the items. T. at 77-78, 85, 87. Mrs. Cole testified the camera 

was in plain view in her home, and appellant knew the camera belonged to her because 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 4 

Mrs. Cole had used it to take pictures of appellant. T. at 75, 97. Mrs. Cole's significant 

other, Geary Cole, testified appellant admitted to him that Amanda took the items and 

she [appellant] pawned the items. T. at 108. 

{¶10} The physical evidence demonstrates appellant identified herself as the 

"pledgor" of the items. T. at 124, 136-137; State's Exhibit 2. The videotape of the 

transaction demonstrates appellant presented the items to the pawnshop clerk, signed 

the pawn ticket, and received the money from the clerk. T. at 124, 144; State's Exhibit 4. 

{¶11} We find appellant's admissions, coupled with the videotape of the 

transaction and the pawn ticket, constitute sufficient credible evidence of appellant 

exerting dominion and control over the items and that she knew the items were stolen. 

{¶12} Assignments of Error I and II are denied. 

III 

{¶13} Appellant claims cumulative error warranting reversal. Given our ruling in 

Assignments of Error I and II, we find this assignment to be moot. 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00221 5 

{¶14} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, P.J. 

Hoffman, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

SGF/sg 927