Court Opinion

ID: 9941785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 21:09:13.887654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:02.025380
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Horton, 2024-Ohio-612.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio/City of Toledo                     Court of Appeals No. L-22-1267

        Appellee                                 Trial Court No. CRB-22-06789

v.

Hollis Lee Horton                                DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                Decided: February 16, 2024

                                            *****

        Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Jimmie Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Tyler Naud Jechura, for appellant.

                                            *****
        DUHART, J.

        {¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal by appellant, Hollis Horton, from the

January 18, 2023 judgment1 of the Toledo Municipal Court. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

11
   Appellant initially appealed a decision journalized on November 9, 2022. We remanded
the case for the trial court to enter a single sentencing entry meeting the requirements of
Crim.R. 32(C), and the trial court complied with the January 18, 2023 decision.
                                  I. Assignment of Error

       The trial court errored when it convicted [appellant] of theft, as all

       supporting testimony was hearsay.

                                  II. Background

       {¶ 2} On July 19, 2022, appellant was charged with aggravated menacing, in

violation of R.C. 2903.21, a first-degree misdemeanor; domestic violence, in violation of

R.C. 2919.25(C), a second-degree misdemeanor; criminal damaging, in violation of R.C.

2909.06(A)(1), a second-degree misdemeanor; and petty theft, in violation of R.C.

2913.02(A)(1), a first-degree misdemeanor.

       {¶ 3} A trial was held before the judge. The state presented the testimony of three

witnesses, appellant did not testify nor present any witnesses. Included in the testimony

presented was the following testimony relevant to this appeal.

                                A. Trial Testimony

                                1. Testimony of T.P.

       {¶ 4} Appellant’s sister, T.P., testified that on July 17, 2022, she went to

appellant’s home to pick up some things he had borrowed from her. She did not enter the

apartment, she waited outside for him to bring the things to her. Appellant first brought

out two folding chairs. T.P. took the chairs to her car and returned to wait outside by the

door. Next, appellant came out of his apartment with a folding table and a butcher knife

and threatened T.P. T.P. got scared and ran across the street. According to T.P.,

2.
appellant threw the table into her car window, shattering it, then went into her car and

took her wallet and a black and white Betty Boop purse, which was inside a green bag,

and went back inside his apartment. Once he went back inside his apartment, T.P.

returned to her car and called the police.

       {¶ 5} T.P. further testified that she was paid that day and there was $375 in her

wallet. T.P. did not give appellant permission to take her purse and wallet.

       {¶ 6} After the police arrived, they retrieved the green bag with T.P.’s purse and

wallet inside. When it was returned to T.P., the purse only had $29 inside.

                       2. Testimony of Officer Savannah Kill

       {¶ 7} Officer Kill testified, inter alia, to seeing “other units” returning a green bag

to T.P. Upon cross-examination, when asked where the other officers had obtained the

green bag, Officer Kill said that “[t]hey stated that they got it from inside [appellant’s]

apartment.” She did not have any knowledge of money being found on appellant when

he was arrested.

                        3. Testimony of Officer Lucas Freels

       {¶ 8} Officer Freels testified that appellant was asked about the altercation and

said that nothing had happened, that T.P. had “come over to pick up property and * * *

pepper sprayed him in the face.” When asked about “[T.P.’s] purse being in his

apartment, * * * [appellant] stated that he did not know how it got in there." After

reviewing his report, he also explained that appellant “gave permission for the crew to go

3.
into the apartment to retrieve the victim’s purse, but he stated that the victim did not go

into his apartment.”

       {¶ 9} Officer Freels testified he conducted an inventory of items in appellant’s

pocket when they arrested him and a few dollars were found on him. At the end of his

testimony, the judge asked Officer Freels if he retrieved the bag from the house, or

whether he observed someone else get the bag from the house, to which he responded

that “[a]nother crew retrieved the bag.”

                                        B. Verdict

       {¶ 10} The judge ultimately found appellant guilty of two of the four charges:

criminal damaging and theft. The judge made the following statement regarding the theft

charge:

              As to the theft, [T.P.] testified that she had a green bag with a Betty

       Boop purse within the bag and that [appellant] took that bag from her. It

       contained things, most importantly, the purse and the money. The bag was

       recovered within his premises and returned to her minus the money. So

       based upon the testimony of the victim and the fact that the officers

       recovered the bag within the defendant’s home, I do find the state has

       proven that case beyond a reasonable doubt and have made a finding of

       guilty as to the theft.

4.
                                   C. Sentencing

       {¶ 11} Appellant was sentenced to 180 days at the Corrections Center of

Northwest Ohio (“CCNO”), which were suspended, and active probation for a period of

one year, for the petty theft conviction, and 90 days in CCNO, which were also

suspended, and a year of active probation on the criminal damaging conviction.

       {¶ 12} Appellant appealed his theft conviction.

                                  III. Law and Analysis

       {¶ 13} Appellant argues that the theft conviction was against the manifest weight

of the evidence as “all supporting evidence was hearsay.” He cites to Officer Kill’s

testimony that other officers “stated they got [the green purse] from inside [appellant’s]

apartment,” as well as Officer Freels’ statement that he did not go into the house to

retrieve the bag, rather “[a]nother crew retrieved the bag.”

       {¶ 14} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, we must review the record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences

drawn from that evidence, consider the credibility of the witnesses and decide, in

resolving any conflicts in the evidence, whether the trier of fact “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. Prescott, 190 Ohio App.3d 702, 2010-Ohio-6048, 943

N.E.2d 1092, ¶ 48 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678

N.E.2d 541 (1997). We do not view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state;

5.
rather, we “sit as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and scrutinize ‘the factfinder’s resolution of the

conflicting testimony.’” State v. Lewis, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1248, 2022-Ohio-4421,

¶ 22, quoting State v. Robinson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1369, 2012-Ohio-6068, ¶ 15.

Only in “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction” is a conviction reversed on manifest weight grounds. Id., quoting Thompkins

at 387.

          {¶ 15} We first note that appellant did not object to the admission of the

statements which he claims are hearsay, and thus, we review the admission of those

statements for plain error. Under the doctrine of plain error, appellant must show “that

but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been

otherwise, and reversal [is] necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State

v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 22, quoting State v.

Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16. Here, we do

not find plain error.

          {¶ 16} First, this case was tried to the bench, and “a judge in a bench trial is

presumed not to have considered improper evidence in reaching a verdict,” but rather is

presumed to have “considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in

arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.’” State v. Arnold,

147 Ohio St.3d 138, 2016-Ohio-1595, 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 39, quoting State v. Post, 32

Ohio St.3d 380, 384, 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987).

6.
       {¶ 17} Second, assuming for purposes of argument that both of the above

comments constitute hearsay,2 we do not find that the admission of that testimony

affected the outcome of the proceeding, or that reversal is necessary to correct a manifest

miscarriage of justice. Here, there was other evidence in the record supporting a finding

of guilty regarding the theft offense.

       {¶ 18} R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) states that “[n]o person, with purpose to deprive the

owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the

property or services * * * [w]ithout the consent of the owner or person authorized to give

consent.” T.P. testified that appellant took her bag, which contained her purse, wallet and

some money and took them into his apartment, that she did not give him permission and

did not enter his apartment, and that when officers arrived they retrieved the bag. There

is also other testimony from Officer Freels, that appellant has not claimed is hearsay,

stating that appellant gave officers permission to go into his apartment to retrieve the bag

and that appellant admitted T.P. was not inside appellant’s home.

       {¶ 19} Therefore, we do not find that appellant’s conviction is based on hearsay,

or is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s assignment of error is

found not well-taken.

2
  We note that the state did not provide any specific argument that these statements are
not hearsay and we find for purposes of this appeal that it is unnecessary to conduct this
analysis.

7.
                                       IV. Conclusion

         {¶ 20} The judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Pursuant to

App.R. 24, appellant is hereby ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J.                           ____________________________
                                                           JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                       JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                           JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

8.