Court Opinion

ID: 9946466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:10:14.113047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.902472
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rentas, 2024-Ohio-732.]

                                 COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

      STATE OF OHIO,                              :

              Plaintiff- Appellee,                :
                                                        No. 112767
                       v.                         :

      JUAN RENTAS,                                :

              Defendant-Appellant.                :

                                  JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

              JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
              RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 29, 2024

           Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-23-679026-A

                                      Appearances:

              Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
              Attorney, and Caroline Maver, Assistant Prosecuting
              Attorney, for appellee.

              Charles Ruiz-Bueno Co., LPA, and J. Charles Ruiz-Bueno,
              for appellant.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

               Defendant-appellant Juan Rentas was convicted after trial of

kidnapping, rape, and felonious assault with sexual motivation and sexual predator
specifications.     Rentas appeals only his convictions for rape and the sexually

motivated and sexual predator specifications; he does not contest his conviction for

felonious assault. He argues that the sexually oriented convictions are against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was swayed by the severity of the

victim’s injuries and did not properly evaluate her testimony. Because the jury had

the ability to weigh the credibility of the victim’s testimony and hear her

explanations and because other evidence presented to the jury at trial corroborated

her testimony, we do not find the convictions to be against the manifest weight of

the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

             PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

                          Procedural History of the Case

                  On February 28, 2023, appellant Juan Rentas was indicted on felony

charges arising from an assault occurring in Lakewood, Ohio from July 13 to July 14,

2022. Rentas was indicted for one count of kidnapping, a felony of the first degree,

two counts of rape, both felonies of the first degree, and two counts of felonious

assault, both felonies of the second degree. The charges included sexual motivation

specifications, notices of prior conviction, repeat violent offender specifications, and

sexually violent predator specifications under R.C. 2941.148(A).

             Prior to trial, Rentas waived a jury as to the specifications, electing to

try those to the bench. Trial commenced on April 12, 2023, and on April 19, 2023,

the jury found Rentas guilty of one count of kidnapping, one count of rape, and one

count of felonious assault. Thereafter, the trial court found Rentas guilty of the
sexual motivation and repeat violent offender specifications on the three counts for

which he was found guilty, as well as finding Rentas to have a prior conviction as

noticed in the indictment.

             On April 20, 2023, the trial court heard evidence as to the sexually

violent predator specifications and found Rentas guilty of those specifications. On

April 26, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed an aggregate

sentence of 33 years to life.1

                 Summary of Relevant Evidence Presented at Trial

             A.D. was in an on-and-off relationship with Rentas, but she broke up

with him in June 2023. She testified that in the evening of July 13, 2022, and into

the early morning hours of July 14, 2022, she was repeatedly beaten and sexually

assaulted by Rentas. She said that her daughter, W.G., who lived in a second floor

apartment, went to Florida for vacation. Rentas was aware W.G. was out of town

and asked her if he could rent the apartment. W.G. agreed and asked A.D. to let

Rentas into the apartment. A.D. testified that she was afraid to be near Rentas but,

1 The court sentenced Rentas to serve a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of

parole after serving 11 years with a consecutive term of incarceration of 1 year pursuant
to the repeat violent offender specification for kidnapping; to a term of life imprisonment
with the possibility of parole after serving 11 years with a consecutive term of
incarceration of 1 year pursuant to the repeat violent offender specification for rape; and
to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving 8 years with a
consecutive term of incarceration of 1 year pursuant to the repeat violent offender
specification. The trial court ordered the sentences for each count to be served
consecutively.
despite that fear, agreed to let him into her daughter’s apartment because she didn’t

want her daughter to lose the money Rentas would pay.

             On direct examination, A.D. testified she picked Rentas up from his

house on Scranton Road in Cleveland, Ohio and took him to the apartment. On

cross-examination, she said that she saw Rentas earlier in the day, then went to get

a manicure and then went to a friend’s house. She admitted that she did not tell

police about seeing Rentas earlier in the day. A.D. testified that she went back to

pick up Rentas and saw him near a corner store. He was upset and slammed the car

door. Although A.D. left, she said she went back and picked Rentas up because she

did not want W.G. to lose the money Rentas was to pay her.

             A.D. testified that when she and Rentas arrived at the apartment, she

opened the door, Rentas hit her in the back of the head, and she fell unconscious.

She testified she woke in the living room on a mattress. A.D. said that throughout

the night, Rentas hit her repeatedly in both the head and body. She stated that the

beating occurred throughout the apartment, that her eyes were swollen, and that it

was a struggle to see. A.D. believed that at one point in time, she thought Rentas

had a knife. A neighbor in the building testified that she heard arguing and noise

several times during the night.

             A.D. testified that sometime during the night, Rentas wanted to have

sex with her; she told him she did not want to have sex with him. She was hit again

and awoke to being on a mattress in the living room with Rentas beside her. He

inserted his fingers into her anus, causing her pain. A.D. said she was in the
apartment for hours and that when Rentas went to the bathroom, she left the

apartment to find help. She first went to the first floor, found no one, then went to

the third floor. There, a tenant Tyler Seastrand heard her screams. Seastrand

testified that he looked in the hallway and saw Rentas throw A.D. to the floor.

Seastrand opened the door, grabbed A.D., and pulled her into his apartment. Rentas

tried to follow but Seastrand pushed him away and shut the door.

             Once A.D. was in the apartment, Seastrand’s friend, Dacheya Simmons,

wrapped a blanket around A.D. and called police. Rentas was in the hallway

banging on Seastrand’s apartment door when police and EMS responded. A.D. was

taken to the hospital, and Rentas was arrested.       Police later searched W.G.’s

apartment. They observed clumps of hair on the floor of the apartment as well as

blood on the floor, stove, and the mattress in the living room.           They took

photographs and collected samples of the blood, bedding from the apartment, A.D.’s

clothing, and interviewed potential witnesses.

              At the hospital, A.D. was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse

Examiner. The nurse testified A.D. had severe swelling to both eyes, swelling to her

upper lip, abrasions on her face, and a chipped tooth. She further noted that A.D.

had swelling on her neck, bruises on her shoulders, back, and arms. The nurse

completed a sexual assault kit, which included taking DNA swabs of A.D.’s buttocks
and perianal area.2 DNA Analyst Kyli Graham of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal

Investigation testified that she analyzed two swabs from the sexual assault kit.

Rentas’s DNA was located on a swab taken from A.D.’s perianal area, as well as on a

swab from A.D.’s buttocks.

              A.D. testified that she suffered numerous injuries, including

hematomas on her brain and severe bruising and swelling; that she had an implant

placed in her left cheek; and that she continued to have blurred vision and numbness

on her face at the time of trial. As to A.D.’s injuries, several witnesses described her

eyes as being swollen to the point she could not open them after the assault.

               After the assault, A.D. said that Rentas attempted to contact her by

phone and that he sent letters to her through W.G. A.D. testified that in the letters,

Rentas asked for forgiveness for beating her, but denied that he raped or kidnapped

her. In addition to the testimony, the jury received physical evidence in the form of

photographs of A.D. taken after the assault, photographs of the apartment, A.D.’s

treatment records, and the bedding and clothing from the incident.

                             LAW AND ARGUMENT

                               Assignment of Error

               Rentas raises one assignment of error, which reads:

      The jury’s rape verdict was against the manifest weigh of the evidence
      and prejudicial against Defendant-Appellant and the bench trial

2 The perianal area was described by the nurse as being the tissue on the outside of the
anus and at the anal opening.
      findings of guilty on the sexual specifications based upon the jury
      verdict.

               Rentas does not contest the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of

felonious assault; instead, he argues that the jury lost its way in finding him guilty

of rape and that the trial court similarly lost its way in convicting him of the sexual

motivation specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.147(A) and sexually violent

predator specifications under R.C. 2941.148(A). He argues that the rape conviction

was against the manifest weight of the evidence due to inconsistencies and

contradictions between A.D.’s prior statements and trial testimony. The state argues

that the verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that both

the jury and the trial court were made aware of inconsistencies, if any, in A.D.’s

testimony. Further, the state argues that even considering any inconsistencies in

A.D.’s testimony, other witnesses and evidence corroborated that testimony.

                    Relevant Law and Standard of Review

               A manifest weight challenge to a conviction asserts that the state has

not met its burden of persuasion in obtaining the conviction. State v. Thompkins,

78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A manifest weight challenge raises

factual issues and we review the challenge as follows:

      The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all
      reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
      determines 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. The
      discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in
      the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
      conviction.
Id. at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st

Dist.1983); State v. Townsend, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107177, 2019-Ohio-544,

¶ 20.

               Inconsistencies or contradictions in a witness’s testimony do not

entitle a defendant to a reversal of a trial. State v. Solomon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 109535, 2021-Ohio-940, ¶ 62, citing State v. Nitsche, 2016-Ohio-3170,

66 N.E.3d 135, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.). Further, in State v. R.I.H., 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 18AP-93, 2019-Ohio-2189, ¶ 38, 41, the Tenth District noted that portions of a

victim’s trial testimony that were inconsistent with prior statements to police did

not amount to a finding of a manifest miscarriage of justice where “the jury was

aware of such inconsistency and was able to consider this when weighing the

credibility of the testimony.”

 The Convictions Are Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence

               Within the sole assignment of error, Rentas points to inconsistencies

or contradictions in A.D.’s testimony and the evidence. He notes, for example, that

A.D. testified she was afraid of Rentas, but met with him and took him to W.G.’s

apartment. Further, Rentas points out that A.D.’s testimony about how much

alcohol she drank was inconsistent with the medical records that showed an elevated

blood-alcohol level.   Additionally, Rentas argues that A.D.’s testimony was not

consistent with her prior testimony to police regarding when she first encountered

Rentas on the day of the assault, the timing of when the assault started, and details

during the assault. Further, Rentas argues A.D.’s testimony differs from police and
neighbors’ testimony as to what A.D. was wearing when she escaped the apartment.

He argues that these contradictions and inconsistencies were ignored by the jury

because of the severity of the injuries A.D. sustained. As such, he claims the jury

and trial court lost their way in convicting him.

               As to the inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony, the jury

heard the inconsistencies during A.D.’s testimony and A.D. was able to explain any

inconsistencies between her testimony and statements made to the police. Further,

A.D.’s testimony as to the physical and sexual assault she suffered was corroborated

by the physical evidence presented to the jury, including the neighbors’ accounts,

photographs of A.D.’s injuries, her medical records, and the DNA evidence.

Accordingly, our review of the record does not lead us to find that this is the

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against a conviction and that

a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. Thompkins, supra.

                                  CONCLUSION

               Rentas’s convictions for kidnapping, rape, and felonious assault with

sexual motivation and sexual predator specifications are affirmed. Rentas argues

that the rape and specification convictions are against the manifest weight of the

evidence due to inconsistencies and contradictions in A.D.’s testimony and that

because of the severity of A.D.’s physical injuries, the jury did not properly consider

the import of those inconsistencies and contradictions. However, the jury was aware

of any inconsistencies between A.D.’s testimony and her prior statements and had

the ability to weigh her credibility. Further, physical evidence, including DNA
evidence at trial, corroborated the victim’s testimony. As such, we do not find that

the jury and the trial court lost their way in entering convictions and the convictions

were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

               Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.            The defendant’s

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

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

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR