Court Opinion

ID: 9396387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 14:09:06.003098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.432365
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Baker, 2023-Ohio-1699.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

        Appellee,                                 :         CASE NO. CA2022-10-094

                                                  :              OPINION
     - vs -                                                       5/22/2023
                                                  :

 JOSHUA BAKER,                                    :

        Appellant.                                :

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
                       Case Nos. 22CRB01277-A and 22CRB01277-B

Laura Gibson, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

        HENDRICKSON, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Joshua Baker, appeals from his convictions in the Hamilton

Municipal Court for theft and criminal damaging.

        {¶ 2} On May 20, 2022, appellant was charged by complaint with one count of theft

in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A), a first-degree misdemeanor, and one count of criminal

damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), a second-degree misdemeanor. The charges

arose out of allegations that on May 4, 2022, in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio, appellant

                                                 -1-
                                                                     Butler CA2022-10-094

and another individual removed and stole the catalytic converter from Darleena Thenot's

Ford F-250 diesel truck, thereby causing harm to the vehicle.

      {¶ 3} Appellant entered a not guilty plea to the charges and a bench trial was held

on September 28, 2022. At trial, the state presented testimony from Thenot and two city of

Hamilton police officers, Officer Alva Leyva and Detective Frank Botts. Thenot testified that

she lives on Millville Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio. Sometime between 5:15 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.

on May 4, 2022, she was awakened by a "very loud metal against metal sawing sound."

Thenot went to investigate the sound, stepping out on her balcony. When she looked down

upon the street where her white Ford F-250 was parked, she observed a man on all fours

on the ground near her truck. Both the truck and the man were visible as they were

illuminated by streetlights. Thenot called 9-1-1 and reported that "somebody was taking the

converter off of [her] truck," explaining that she knew what was happening because she is

a "car girl." She provided a description of the man she saw to the 9-1-1 dispatcher, stating

he was wearing "dark clothing, a shirt and bottoms" and had "buzzed-off blonde hair."

      {¶ 4} By the time Thenot went downstairs and outside, she saw that the man had

put on a ski mask. Thenot also saw a second individual in a ski mask who was working

with the first man to remove the catalytic converter. Thenot observed sparks coming from

under her F-250 and then observed the second individual lift up the catalytic converter and

show it to the other man before they both ran away from her home. Thenot ran after the

two individuals and saw them get into a charcoal, four-door Acura. She returned to her

home after the Acura drove off and provided a statement about the event to the police

officers who had been dispatched to the scene.

      {¶ 5} Later that morning, Thenot went to work at a dental clinic located

approximately one block behind her home. Next door to the clinic was an automotive store.

When she left the clinic to get lunch, she observed the man with the buzzed-off blonde hair

                                            -2-
                                                                      Butler CA2022-10-094

standing next to a charcoal Acura. The man retrieved an item from the backseat of the

Acura and carried it into the automotive store. Thenot testified that though she did not

"know exactly" what the man carried into the store, it looked like a catalytic converter.

Thenot called the police to report the man's presence at the store, but before the police

arrived, the man had exited the automotive store still carrying the item, entered his car, and

drove away.

       {¶ 6} Thenot later spoke with Robert Lewis, the owner of the automotive store. He

showed her a picture of appellant on Facebook and Thenot identified appellant as the man

with buzzed-off blonde hair that she had seen take her catalytic converter and then later

enter the automotive store. Thenot informed the police of appellant's name and, on May

18, 2022, she identified appellant in a six-man photo lineup administered by Officer Leyva.

Thenot testified that prior to the May 4, 2022 incident, she had never before seen appellant

and did not know his name.

       {¶ 7} A few days after her catalytic converter had been stolen, Thenot moved her

truck and found a flashlight underneath it. She provided the flashlight to Detective Botts.

       {¶ 8} Thenot testified that the theft of her catalytic converter caused harm to her F-

250, as she had to purchase a $100 part to "straight pipe" the vehicle so it could be driven.

She also testified that she had been advised that it would cost between $2,800 and $3,200

to replace the whole converter system. Photographs of Thenot's damaged vehicle and

photographs demonstrating how the streetlights illuminated her parked truck were admitted

into evidence.

       {¶ 9} Detective Botts testified that he investigated Thenot's report of a stolen

catalytic converter. After speaking with Lewis, Detective Botts created the photo lineup that

contained appellant's picture. He had Officer Leyva, an officer with no knowledge or

involvement in the investigation, administer the lineup to Thenot. Detective Botts also had

                                            -3-
                                                                    Butler CA2022-10-094

the flashlight Thenot recovered dusted for fingerprints, but no fingerprints could be found

on the item.   On cross-examination, Detective Botts admitted that in Thenot's initial

statement to him, she had not described appellant as having any tattoos. However, on a

later occasion, she mentioned appellant having tattoos.

      {¶ 10} Officer Leyva testified that she administered the photo lineup to Thenot and

that Thenot had selected appellant's picture by circling the photo and initialing below it.

Thenot "did not tell" Officer Leyva anything when the test was administered, including that

Thenot had previously viewed a picture of appellant on Facebook.

      {¶ 11} At the conclusion of the state's case-in-chief, appellant moved for acquittal

pursuant to Crim.R. 29. The trial court denied his motion. Thereafter, appellant rested his

defense without calling any witnesses. Following closing arguments, the trial court found

appellant guilty of both theft and criminal damaging. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent

jail terms of 180 days, with 60 days suspended, for the theft offense and 90 days, with 90

days suspended, for the criminal damaging offense. He was also sentenced to two years

of supervised community control.

      {¶ 12} Appellant appealed his conviction, raising two assignments of error for review.

                         Denial of Request for a Continuance

      {¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 1:

      {¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING APPELLANT'S REQUEST

FOR A CONTINUANCE.

      {¶ 15} On the day of his trial, appellant orally requested a continuance.         He

contended that a continuance was necessary as (1) he had evidence to present that he had

thus far been unable to obtain, (2) he had not been able to consult with his appointed

attorney, felt that he was being "misrepresented," and wished to hire counsel, and (3) he

had been and was still sick. The court recessed proceedings to allow appellant to converse

                                           -4-
                                                                      Butler CA2022-10-094

with his appointed attorney, but otherwise denied appellant's request for a continuance,

noting that "the case has been set for a trial for awhile and the witnesses are here and ready

to go." Appellant contends the trial court's denial of a continuance was "unreasonable" and

an abuse of the court's discretion, as "[t]here would have been little to no prejudice to the

State * * * as not all their witnesses were even present."

       {¶ 16} "A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a

continuance." State v. Bullock, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2005-04-031, 2006-Ohio-598, ¶

12, citing State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 (1981). This court will not reverse the trial

court's decision to deny a defendant's motion for a continuance absent an abuse of that

discretion. State v. Glowka, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-203, 2013-Ohio-3080, ¶ 8.

An abuse of discretion "connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that

the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." State v. Adams, 62 Ohio

St.2d 151, 157 (1980). "A decision is unreasonable where a sound reasoning process does

not support it." State v. Miller, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-01-007, 2016-Ohio-7360, ¶ 7.

       {¶ 17} While there is no "bright-line test" for determining whether a motion for a

continuance should be granted, the Ohio Supreme Court has set forth several factors as

guidance for the trial court. State v. Simmons, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-10-069, 2021-

Ohio-3563, ¶ 59. These factors include, but are not limited to, "the length of the requested

delay, whether other continuances have been requested and received, the inconveniences

likely to result, the reasons for the delay, and whether the defendant contributed to the

circumstances giving rise to the need for delay." State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-

Ohio-5304, ¶ 18.

       {¶ 18} The record reveals that appellant was arrested on a warrant on June 16, 2022,

and was subsequently arraigned on June 29, 2022. At that time, counsel was appointed to

him and the case was continued to July 6, 2022. On July 6, 2022, the case was continued

                                            -5-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-10-094

until August 3, 2022. On August 3, 2022, the matter was scheduled for a trial on August 31,

2022. On August 31, 2022, appellant moved for a continuance "to prepare case." The trial

was rescheduled for September 28, 2022.

       {¶ 19} Based on the foregoing sequence of events, it is clear that appellant had 91

days to consult with his appointed counsel. After appointed counsel received the state's

discovery response, he requested and was granted a continuance of trial to prepare

appellant's case. Appellant was then granted time at the beginning of trial to consult with

his attorney. At no point prior to the day of trial did appellant indicate any dissatisfaction

with his appointed counsel or otherwise indicate a desire to retain other counsel.

       {¶ 20} Appellant also claimed he needed a continuance to obtain evidence.

However, appellant never specified what evidence he was unable to obtain in the time frame

between counsel being appointed and the September 28, 2022 trial date. Further, there is

nothing in the record before us indicating appellant informed his counsel of the evidence he

wanted obtained or that counsel failed to take steps to investigate or obtain said evidence.

See State v. Toles, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2019-07-018, 2020-Ohio-4267, ¶ 25-27

(finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a continuance on

the day of trial where the defendant did not inform his appointed counsel of certain

witnesses who would allegedly assist in his defense until shortly before trial commenced).

       {¶ 21} Finally, appellant asked for a continuance because "I'm sick today, too, sir,

I've been sick for three days." Appellant did not offer any proof or explanation of his illness

beyond this statement. While appellant may have felt under the weather, the record clearly

shows he was able to attend and participate in the proceedings against him by consulting

with his attorney and by addressing the trial court.

       {¶ 22} Granting a continuance on the day of trial would have resulted in an

inconvenience to the state and to the witnesses who had appeared and were ready to

                                             -6-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-10-094

proceed that day. Though one witness, Lewis, failed to comply with the state's subpoena,

the state was ready and able to present its case against appellant. Accordingly, under the

facts of this case, where the trial court had previously granted defense counsel's request

for a continuance of trial, the state's witnesses were present and ready to proceed, the

request for a continuance was made only moments before trial was set to commence, and

the reasons offered by appellant for wanting the continuance were varied and shifted, we

find that the trial court did not act unreasonably or otherwise abuse its discretion in denying

appellant's request for a continuance.

       {¶ 23} Appellant's first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.

                                Sufficiency of the Evidence

       {¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 2:

       {¶ 25} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY * * *

BECAUSE THE FINDING OF GUILT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT

EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 26} Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict

is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997); State v. Grinstead,

194 Ohio App.3d 755, 2011-Ohio-3018, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency

of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence

in order to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind

of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No.

CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9. Therefore, "[t]he 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."

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶ 27} Appellant was convicted of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), which

                                             -7-
                                                                     Butler CA2022-10-094

prohibits a person, "with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, [from]

knowingly obtain[ing] or exert[ing] control over the property or services * * * [w]ithout the

consent of the owner." He was also convicted of criminal damaging in violation of R.C.

2909.06(A)(1), which prohibits a person from knowingly causing or creating a substantial

risk of physical harm to any property of another without the other person's consent.

Appellant does not dispute any element of these offenses. Rather, he contends that his

convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence because the state failed to present

evidence identifying him as the perpetrator of the offenses.

      {¶ 28} "It is well settled that in order to warrant a conviction, the evidence must

establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the person who

committed the crime at issue." State v. Jividen, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-10-067,

2021-Ohio-2720, ¶ 11. See also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 526 (1992). "The identity

of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime may be established by direct or circumstantial

evidence." State v. Hibbard, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-09-086, 2023-Ohio-983, ¶ 20.

"Circumstantial and direct evidence have the same probative value." Id., citing State v. Lee,

12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-09-014 and CA2020-09-015, 2021-Ohio-2544, ¶ 25.

      {¶ 29} Upon reviewing the record, we find that appellant's convictions for theft and

criminal damaging are supported by sufficient evidence. The state presented evidence

establishing each of the essential elements of the offenses, including the identity of

appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thenot testified

that after being awakened on May 4, 2022 by a loud metal against metal sawing sound, she

went to the balcony and watched as appellant stole her catalytic converter.          Thenot

explained that illumination from the streetlight allowed her to not only see what appellant

was doing and wearing, but she could also see his face and his "buzzed off blonde hair."

She was able to provide a description of appellant to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. She then saw

                                            -8-
                                                                            Butler CA2022-10-094

this individual, now wearing a ski mask, get into a charcoal Acura and drive away with her

catalytic converter. Later that day, she saw the same man, the man with the buzzed-off

blonde hair, standing beside a charcoal Acura. She observed this man enter an automotive

store holding what appeared to be a catalytic converter. She later spoke with the owner of

the automotive shop and was shown a Facebook picture of appellant by the shop owner.

Thenot confirmed the individual in the picture—appellant—was the person who had

damaged her car by stealing the converter. A few days later, Thenot picked appellant's

picture out of a police lineup.

       {¶ 30} Appellant maintains that Thenot's identification is not trustworthy, as she

learned of appellant's name from the Facebook photograph the automotive shop owner

showed her. He contends that "[w]ithout someone else telling Ms. Thenot who they believed

was the individual involved in the theft, Ms. Thenot would not have been able to identify

appellant or anyone as the individual she believed to be involved in the theft of her truck's

catalytic converter." However, the fact that Thenot learned of appellant's name from another

person does not diminish her recognition of appellant as the person who committed the

theft and criminal damaging offenses. Thenot observed appellant's face the morning of the

offenses and when he went into the automotive repair shop. She was then able to identify

him in a photo lineup as the perpetrator of the crimes. Based on Thenot's testimony and

her identification of appellant in a photo lineup, the trial court, as a rational trier of fact, could

have found appellant's identification as the individual who committed the crimes established

beyond a reasonable doubt. Any doubt appellant wished to place on Thenot's identification

went to the credibility of her testimony and the weight to be given to such evidence. The

trial court judge, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to determine the credibility of

witnesses and weight to be given to the evidence as it relates to the perpetrator's identity.

See State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2013-10-019, 2014-Ohio-4625, ¶ 41.

                                                -9-
[Cite as State v. Baker, 2023-Ohio-1699.]

        {¶ 31} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we find that the state presented

evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of theft

and criminal damaging offenses.             Appellant's convictions are supported by sufficient

evidence and his second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.

                             Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Entry Required

        {¶ 32} Having reviewed the record in the present case, we notice and raise, sua

sponte, an error in the trial court's Judgment Entry of Conviction for Cases Nos.

22CRB01277-A (theft) and 22CRB01277-B (criminal damaging). The sentencing entries

mistakenly indicate that appellant pleaded guilty to theft and criminal damaging, even

though the trial court found appellant guilty of the offenses following a bench trial. Under

Crim.R. 36, "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors

in the record arising from oversight or omission, may be corrected by the court at any time."

"The purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry under Crim.R. 36 is to record actions that actually

were taken but not correctly recorded." State v. Glover, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28994,

2021-Ohio-2533, ¶ 11. See also State v. Stewart, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-08-215,

2011-Ohio-2211, ¶ 15. Because the judgment entries of conviction contain a mistake as to

the manner of conviction, we remand this case and direct the trial court to issue nunc pro

tunc sentencing entries reflecting that appellant was found guilty following a bench trial.

See State v. Chasteen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-247, 2013-Ohio-3573, ¶ 17; Dublin

v. Starr, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-173, 2022-Ohio-2298, ¶ 11, fn. 2 and ¶ 67.

        {¶ 33} Judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for the limited purpose of

issuing nunc pro tunc sentencing entries in Cases Nos. 22CRB01277-A                      and

                                                 - 10 -
                                                                  Butler CA2022-10-094

22CRB01277-B to correct the manner of conviction. In all other respects, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

       M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

                                         - 11 -