Court Opinion

ID: 9400502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 15:09:58.410747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:45.820322
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Strongsville v. Henry, 2023-Ohio-1891.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF STRONGSVILLE,                              :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                             No. 111913
                 v.                                :

RICHARD T. HENRY,                                  :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2023

                       Criminal Appeal from the Berea Municipal Court
                                  Case No. 21CRB00483-1

                                             Appearances:

                 John T. Castele, City of Strongsville Prosecutor, for
                 appellee.

                 Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                 Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for
                 appellant.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

                 Defendant-appellant Richard Henry appeals his conviction for

attempted petty theft following a bench trial. He contends that his conviction was
not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

             For the reasons that follow, we vacate Henry’s conviction and remand

for further proceedings.

Factual Background and Procedural History

             Henry was charged with theft by deception in violation of Strongsville

Codified Ordinances 642.02(a)(3), a first-degree misdemeanor, based on his alleged

role in the attempted fraudulent return of a television valued at approximately $800

to a Walmart store on March 17, 2021. Henry appeared before the Strongsville

Mayor’s Court and pled not guilty to the charge and the case was transferred to the

Berea Municipal Court.     Henry’s codefendant, Bethany Perkins, was similarly

charged in connection with the incident.

             The parties consented, on the record, to having the matter heard by a

magistrate, and the case proceeded to trial before a magistrate on May 18, 2022. A

summary of the relevant evidence presented at trial follows.

             Samantha Price, a Walmart asset protection employee, testified that in

late February 2021 she was working at Walmart’s Strongsville store when she was

made aware of a problematic return.        Someone returned a television to the

Strongsville store on February 24, 2021. When the return was accepted, the box was

not opened to confirm its contents. When the box was opened the following day, it

was discovered that the television inside the box was broken and was a different

brand, size and model than what was indicated on the box.
             Price identified a still image obtained from Walmart’s surveillance

footage that showed Perkins “wheeling that TV box into [the] Strongsville [store]”

and returning the television on February 24, 2021. Based on a screenshot of an

“Electronic Journal Display Screen” documenting the return of the television, Price

stated that Perkins received $1,077.84 in cash for the television she returned on

February 24, 2021 (the “first television”).

             Price testified that she obtained the serial number from the box of the

returned television and looked it up in Walmart’s inventory system to determine the

date, time and location of the purchase of that television and learned that it had been

purchased at the North Olmsted store two days earlier. Price then contacted the

North Olmsted store to see if they had surveillance footage of the purchase of the

television. Price identified still images of surveillance footage depicting a male

purchasing the television at the North Olmsted store on February 22, 2021. The

man’s face was not visible in the images and Perkins stated that she could not

identify the man who purchased the television on February 22, 2021. Perkins also

identified a still image of a red Ford Fusion parked outside the North Olmsted store

on February 22, 2021 at the time of the purchase.

             On March 17, 2021, Perkins attempted to return another television (the

“second television”) at Walmart’s Strongsville store.        Price testified that she

observed Perkins enter the store with a television and became suspicious when she

saw a red Ford Fusion (which she recognized from the surveillance footage she had

obtained from the North Olmsted store in connection with the prior incident)
parked in the fire lane outside the store’s “grocery doors.” Price stated that she

reviewed the Strongsville store’s surveillance footage. The surveillance footage

showed Henry placing the television box on a cart for Perkins, who was pregnant.

Perkins then “wheeled” the television into the store.

             Price stated that, by the time she reviewed the surveillance footage,

Perkins was “already in the middle of the return,” so she called the Strongsville

police.

               As before, Price obtained the serial number from the box of the

returned television and looked it up in Walmart’s inventory system. She determined

that the television had been purchased the previous day, March 16, 2021, at the

North Olmsted store. Price testified that she opened the box Perkins was attempting

to return to see if the television inside the box was the same television that had been

purchased in North Olmsted the previous day. It was not. The television inside was

broken, and the brand, size, model and serial number of the television did not

correspond with the box in which it had been returned. The city introduced copies

of photographs of the box and the returned television, a copy of the purchase receipt

for the television — a “SAM 65 4K TV” purchased for $807.84 — and still images of

surveillance footage from the North Olmsted store showing Perkins and another

individual purchasing that television at the North Olmsted store on March 16, 2021.

              Price testified that Perkins received “cash back” from the Strongsville

store for the return of the second television. However, the city did not introduce a
return receipt or other documentation showing that Perkins had, in fact, received

cash back for the second return.

               On cross-examination, Price acknowledged that she had not

examined the contents of the boxes prior to the purchase of the televisions on

February 22, 2021 and March 16, 2021 and could not state with certainty what was

in the boxes at the time those televisions were purchased. She testified that when

Walmart accepts a return of a television, the television is placed in a claims area,

where the box is opened and the television is checked.       She stated that broken

televisions are not placed back on the shelf and sold as new.

               Jonathan Hayes, a patrol officer with the Strongsville Police

Department, responded to Price’s call regarding an alleged fraudulent return at the

Strongsville Walmart on March 17, 2021. Hayes testified that when he arrived at the

store, Perkins was in the customer service area with the second television. Price

explained what happened with the prior fraudulent television return and expressed

her concern that another fraudulent television return could be in progress based on

(1) Perkins’ attempted return of the second television and (2) the presence of the red

Ford Fusion (which had been observed in connection with the purchase of the prior

television that had allegedly been fraudulently returned) parked outside the

Strongsville store.

               Hayes testified that he located the red Ford Fusion in the parking lot

and found Henry sitting inside the vehicle. At Hayes’ request, a dispatcher looked
up the license plate number for the vehicle and determined that Henry was the

registered owner of the vehicle.

               Hayes stated that he explained to Henry why he was there and

escorted Henry inside the store while he continued to investigate the matter. Hayes

testified that he and a Walmart employee opened the television box Perkins had

been attempting to return and discovered that the television inside the box was a

different television from that depicted on the box, i.e., a different brand of television

and a “much older, broken television.” Hayes indicated that it also appeared as if

the television’s serial number had been “tampered with.” He stated that it looked

like the sticker containing the serial number from the television that had been

purchased (i.e., the television that corresponded with the box) had been removed

from that television and “switched” to the older, broken television, “placed over top

of the old serial number.” Hayes testified that he issued citations to Henry and

Perkins in connection with the incident.

               On cross-examination, Hayes acknowledged that he did not observe

the television purchases on February 22, 2021 and March 16, 2021 and that he had

not looked inside the boxes before the televisions were purchased and could not

state with certainty whether the televisions that were returned on February 24, 2021

and March 17, 2021 were different from the televisions that were in the boxes at the

time of their purchase.

               Perkins and Henry testified in their defense. Perkins testified that she

and Henry had been together for seven years. She admitted that she returned a
television to the Strongsville store on February 24, 2021 which Henry had purchased

on February 22, 2021. Perkins testified that she was not with Henry when he

purchased that television and stated that she returned the television because “I

decided I didn’t want that TV * * * for the apartment I had purchased it for.” Perkins

testified that she never opened the box and was unaware of the contents of the box

before she returned the television to the Strongsville store. She stated that Henry

was not present when she returned the first television to the Strongsville store on

February 24, 2021.

              Perkins also admitted purchasing a second television from the North

Olmsted store on March 16, 2021. She testified that she purchased the second

television because “I had decided I wanted to put a TV in my bedroom” and that a

friend, Melissa Bailey, was with her when she purchased the second television.

Perkins stated that she attempted to return the second television at the Strongsville

store on March 17, 2021 because she had found the same television cheaper on

Facebook Marketplace.

              Perkins testified that she drove Henry’s car — a red Ford Fusion — to

the Strongsville store to return the second television on March 17, 2021. She stated

that Henry was with her but remained in the car when she went inside to attempt

the return. Perkins testified that she never opened the box and was unaware of the

contents of the box before she attempted to return the second television at the

Strongsville store. Perkins stated that she never completed the return of the second
television and she did not receive any compensation for the return of the second

television.

               On     cross-examination,      Perkins    acknowledged       that    she

“[o]ccasionally” posted televisions for sale on Facebook Marketplace but denied that

she had ever sold a stolen item on Facebook Marketplace.

               Henry testified that he was not present when Perkins purchased the

second television on March 16, 2021 and that her friend, Melissa, accompanied her.

Henry stated that he and Perkins never opened the box containing the second

television and that he was unaware of the contents of the box before Perkins

attempted to return the second television on March 17, 2021.

               Henry testified that when Perkins came home after purchasing the

second television, she told him that she wanted to return it. He stated that he did

not question her decision and “just followed her to the store.” He testified that

Perkins drove his car to the store and that he remained in the car until police officers

“came out and got me.” He stated that he could not recall whether he helped Perkins

place the television on a cart when she was returning the television.

               Henry testified that when the police officers brought him inside the

store, he looked at the television that had been returned and saw that the serial

numbers on the television that had been returned and the box matched. He stated

that he showed this to a police officer who was then present.

               Henry testified that after the Strongsville store refused to accept the

return of the second television, he and Perkins took the television to Walmart’s
Lorain store and returned the second television there. He stated that the Lorain

Walmart returned the television “as was” and refunded them the purchase price of

the second television. Henry claimed that, at the Lorain store, he had someone

“acknowledge it, examine it, and write a note, a statement stating that it was the

right TV when we returned it.” (This note was not introduced into evidence.)

               In its closing argument, the city argued that the purchases and

returns of the two televisions were part of a course of conduct and that Henry was

guilty of theft under a complicity theory, i.e., that he aided and abetted Perkins’

fraudulent return of the second television by providing the transportation she used

to get to the Strongsville store on March 17, 2021 and helping her load the television

onto a cart so she could make the return. Henry’s counsel argued that there was

insufficient evidence to convict Henry of theft because he was not present when the

second television was purchased on March 16, 2021, there was no evidence that what

was in the box at the time of the return was different from what was in the box at the

time of purchase and Henry’s “mere presence” at the scene, i.e., remaining in the car

when Perkins attempted the return of the second television on March 17, 2021, could

not establish complicity in Perkins’ alleged fraudulent return of the second

television.

               After hearing the evidence and the closing arguments of counsel, the

magistrate found Henry and Perkins guilty of attempted theft by deception. As

related to Henry, the magistrate explained his verdict as follows:
            The charge here under the complaint is theft by deception under
      Strongsville City Code 642.02. It’s a first-degree misdemeanor. * * * I
      did not see any receipt or any evidence of cash being handed back to
      [Perkins]. There was some oral testimony of cash going — maybe being
      given back to her.

             My further understanding is the television was returned — based
      on the testimony of the defendants, was returned to the defendants
      along with * * * a least a copy of the purchase receipt. * * * I do find
      that there’s no direct evidence that they actually gained a benefit from
      the return of the TV on that particular day.

             I do find, however, that there was an attempt to, by deception, to
      deceive the owner of property of Walmart on March 16th and March
      17th with the return of the television with something that did not match
      the item itself. * * *

             With respect to Defendant Richard T. Henry, I do find that your
      activities were aiding and abetting and also assisted in the attempted
      theft of those — of that refund of cash based on the receipt from the
      purchase back in North Olmsted. I, therefore, find you guilty of
      attempted petty theft, a second-degree misdemeanor, as a lesser
      included offense.

               On May 18, 2022, the magistrate issued a “journal entry” setting forth

his verdict as follows: “Bench trial had. Defendant found guilty of attempted petty

theft as lesser included offense ORC 2923.02 and 2913.02[.] Pass for sentencing for

PSI.” The journal entry was not captioned as a magistrate’s decision and did not

include the notification required under Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii). On May 19, 2022,

the trial court issued a journal entry “adopt[ing] such decision.” The trial court’s

journal entry stated in full:

      This cause came on for consideration on Magistrate * * * decision filed
      on 05/18/2022 entered herein:

      Bench trial had. Defendant found guilty of attempted petty theft as
      lesser included offense ORC 2923.02 and 2913.02[.] Pass for
      sentencing for PSI.
      Upon review, the Court hereby adopts such decision.

               The trial court thereafter sentenced Henry to ten days in jail (or

community service in lieu of jail), two years of probation and a $100 fine plus costs.

               Henry appealed, raising the following two assignments of error for

review:

      Assignment of Error No. 1:
      Mr. Henry’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.

      Assignment of Error No. 2:
      Mr. Henry’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Law and Analysis

               As an initial matter, we must first determine whether Henry’s

assignments of error are properly before this court. As this was a bench trial held

before a magistrate, the provisions of Crim.R. 19 apply.

              Crim.R. 19(C)(1)(h) states: “To assist courts of record and pursuant

to reference under Crim.R. 19(D)(1), magistrates are authorized, subject to the terms

of the relevant reference, to * * * [c]onduct the trial of any misdemeanor case that

will not be tried to a jury.” See also Crim.R. 19(D)(1)(a) (“A court of record may, for

one or more of the purposes described in Crim.R. 19(C)(1), refer a particular case or

matter of a category of cases or matters to a magistrate by a specific or general order

of reference or by a rule.”).    “If the offense charged is an offense for which

imprisonment is a possible penalty, the matter may be referred only with unanimous

consent of the parties in writing or on the record in open court.” Crim.R. 19(C)(1)(h).
Here, the parties consented, on the record in open court, to a bench trial conducted

by the magistrate.

               Where a matter is referred to a magistrate, the magistrate “shall

prepare a magistrate’s decision respecting [the] matter.” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(i). A

magistrate’s decision “may be general unless findings of fact and conclusions of law

are timely requested by a party or otherwise required by law.”                 Crim.R.

19(D)(3)(a)(ii).   A magistrate’s decision “shall be in writing, identified as a

magistrate’s decision in the caption, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk,

and served by the clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later than three days after

the decision is filed.” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii). The magistrate’s decision shall also

“indicate conspicuously that a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s

adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically

designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii),

unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal

conclusion as required by Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b).” Id. Objections to a magistrate’s

decision must be specific and must be filed in writing within 14 days of the filing of

the decision. Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(i)-(ii).

               The purpose of the procedures set forth in Crim.R. 19(D) is to afford

the parties ‘“a meaningful opportunity to file objections to the magistrate’s

decision.’” State v. Wheeler, 2016-Ohio-2964, 65 N.E.3d 182, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.),

quoting Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC v. Litter, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-563,

2010-Ohio-3325, ¶ 6. Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii)’s “conspicuous” notice requirement
‘“serves to warn the parties of the consequences of failing to file objections.”’

Wheeler at ¶ 10, quoting Walters v. Lewis, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0135,

2016-Ohio-1064, ¶ 18.

               The magistrate’s journal entry in this case did not comply with

Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii); it was not designated as a “magistrate’s decision” and did

not notify the parties of the effect of failing to timely file objections. However, the

issue has not been raised by the parties below or on appeal.

               A magistrate’s decision is not effective unless adopted by the trial

court. Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(a). A trial court may adopt or reject a magistrate’s decision

in whole or in part, with or without modification. Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(b). If objections

are timely filed to a magistrate’s decision, the trial court must undertake an

independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has

properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. Crim.R.

19(D)(4)(d).   Objections to a magistrate’s factual findings must generally be

supported by a transcript of the evidence. See Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iii).

               Pursuant to Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv), a party forfeits appellate review

of an issue, except for a claim of plain error, unless the party timely files objections

to the magistrate’s decision as to that issue. Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a

claim of plain error, a party shall not assign on appeal the court’s adoption of any

factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Crim. R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party

has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Crim. R. 19(D)(3)(b).”).
              Here, Henry did not file any objections to the “magistrate’s decision.”

No transcript was filed in the case until the appeal. And Henry has not made a plain

error argument on appeal.

               Further, pursuant to Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(c), if no timely objections are

filed to a magistrate’s decision, the trial court is not obliged to conduct an

independent review and may adopt a magistrate’s decision unless it determines that

there is “an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s

decision.” Here, the trial court adopted the “magistrate’s decision” in whole, without

modification. Because no objections were filed — timely or otherwise — the trial

court was only required to determine that there was no error of law or other defect

on the face of the magistrate’s decision. Although it appears that there was at least

one defect evident on the face of the journal entry (i.e., the lack of required notice

under Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii)), Henry has not raised this as error on appeal.

               Because the appellate court generally reviews the trial court’s

decision (and not the magistrate’s decision), see, e.g., State v. Lawson, 9th Dist.

Medina No. 16CA0081-M, 2018-Ohio-694, ¶ 15, and because there has been no

claim here that the trial court erred in adopting the “magistrate’s decision” based on

“an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision” (or

based on some other procedural deficiency below), it could be said that there is

nothing for this court to review. See, e.g., State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464,

2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 (observing that ‘“justice is far better served

when it has the benefit of briefing, arguing, and lower court consideration before
making a final determination’” and that appellate courts are “not obligated to search

the record or formulate legal arguments on behalf of the parties, because ‘appellate

courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but [preside]

essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before

them’”), quoting Sizemore v. Smith, 6 Ohio St.3d 330, 333, 453 N.E.2d 632 (1983),

fn. 2, and Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177, 230 U.S. App. D.C. 80

(D.C.Cir.1983).

               Nevertheless, we recognize that where a magistrate’s decision fails to

comply with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii), “courts have employed varying remedies by

examining the circumstances of each case to determine the remedy to be employed

on appeal.” Parma v. Hardimon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110296, 2021-Ohio-4430,

¶ 10. Where prejudice occurs as a result of a failure to comply with Crim.R.

19(D)(3)(a)(iii), e.g., a party fails to file timely objections, appellate courts have

generally either (1) remanded the case to the trial court so that the parties may have

the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate’s decision or (2) permitted the

appellant to raise his or her arguments challenging the magistrate’s decision for the

first time on appeal. See, e.g., Parma at ¶ 10-11 (electing to vacate conviction and

remanding matter to allow defendant an opportunity to file objections to the

magistrate’s decision accepting defendant’s plea and recommending sentence);

State v. Purvis, 2018-Ohio-2881, 117 N.E.3d 828, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.) (addressing

assigned error challenging the manifest weight of the evidence); Wheeler, 2016-

Ohio-2964, 65 N.E.3d 182, at ¶ 11-15 (concluding that “the waiver rule under Crim.R.
19(D)(3)(b)(iv) does not apply” and that defendant “may raise his arguments

pertaining to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision for the first time

on appeal”); State v. Masalko, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 15AP0011, 2015-Ohio-5179, ¶ 5-

7 (reversing trial court and remanding matter for the preparation and filing of a

magistrate’s decision that complies with Crim.R. 19 and to permit the parties an

opportunity to file objections).

               Under the circumstances here, we elect to vacate Henry’s conviction

and remand the matter to the trial court so that (1) the magistrate can prepare and

file a decision that complies with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and (2) the parties may

then have the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate’s decision.

               Judgment vacated and remanded.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee the costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea

Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR