Court Opinion

ID: 9380528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 14:06:41.659745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.827970
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Barry, 2023-Ohio-750.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                  NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                           C.A. No.     22CA0041-M

        Appellee

        v.                                              APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                        ENTERED IN THE
BRENT BARRY                                             MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT
                                                        COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
        Appellant                                       CASE No.   21CRB01101

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 13, 2023

        SUTTON, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Plaintiff-Appellant, Brent Barry, appeals the judgment of the Medina Municipal

Court. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

                                                   I.

                                           Relevant Background

        {¶2}     This appeal arises due to an incident at Mr. Barry’s residence concerning the

destruction of property belonging to his brother, B.B., including a backpack, clothing, and Nike

Air Jordan sneakers. After an investigation, Mr. Barry was charged with criminal damaging, in

violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), a second degree misdemeanor. Mr. Barry pleaded not guilty and

the matter proceeded to bench trial. At trial, Mr. Barry engaged in self-representation after waiving

his right to counsel both orally and in written form. Mr. Barry also orally stipulated to damaging

the backpack.
                                                 2

       {¶3}    In support of its case-in-chief, the State called B.B. and Officer Joseph Calabrese.

Further, Mr. Barry called Dorothy Rudolpho, his grandmother, to testify in his defense.

       {¶4}    B.B. testified he lives with Mr. Barry and Ms. Rudolpho. Mr. Barry was upset

because he thought B.B. had stolen clothes from him. B.B. came home one day to find his

backpack “ripped to pieces[,]” his clothing ripped up, and water poured into his Nike Air Jordan

sneakers. B.B. further testified he did not give Mr. Barry permission to destroy these items of

personal property.

       {¶5}    Officer Calabrese testified he responded to a complaint at the Barry residence

regarding the destruction of B.B.’s personal property. At that time, he spoke with Mr. Barry and

B.B. Officer Calabrese further testified:

       according to [B.B.], [Mr. Barry] became upset that his clothes were missing,
       couldn’t find them, and by thinking that [B.B.] was the one who took them, [Mr.
       Barry] intentionally ripped [B.B.’s] clothing up and his backpack and then
       subsequently ran [B.B.’s] Air Jordans underneath the sink water in the utility sink.

Officer Calabrese agreed that Mr. Barry admitted to ripping the backpack, although Mr. Barry said

he did not do so “purposely[.]” Mr. Barry also told Officer Calabrese “[t]hat the shoes were

already in the sink, and when he turned on the faucet, the water hit them.” Officer Calabrese

indicated he inspected the relevant items of property, including the backpack, jeans, shirt, and Nike

Air Jordan sneakers, although he did not recall the condition of the shirt. The backpack “looked *

* * as if somebody took it and just ripped at the end of the zippers where they end, and there was

a little bit of rip from that point down.” The jeans “were the most noticeable * * * and it looked

like somebody ripped them apart down to one pant leg.” Officer Calabrese also stated, “[t]he shoes

were still saturated with water.” At the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Calabrese

determined there was probable cause to charge Mr. Barry with “criminal damaging of [B.B.’s]

clothing and backpack.”
                                                   3

          {¶6}     Ms. Rudolpho testified she unlocked Mr. Barry’s bedroom door, without Mr.

Barry’s permission, and B.B. took clothing from Mr. Barry’s room and placed it in his backpack.

However, Ms. Rudolpho was not sure if the clothing actually belonged to Mr. Barry or B.B.

According to Ms. Rudolpho, Mr. Barry gave B.B. some clothing and then took it back. B.B. asked

Ms. Rudolpho to unlock Mr. Barry’s bedroom door to retrieve his own clothing. On cross-

examination, Ms. Rudolpho admitted she witnessed Mr. Barry rip B.B.’s backpack with his hands

and pour water on the Nike Air Jordan sneakers. Further, Ms. Rudolpho yelled at Mr. Barry to

“stop” and pulled items of clothing away from him to prevent further damage.

          {¶7}     The trial court found Mr. Barry guilty of criminal damaging and sentenced him to

a fine of three hundred dollars, plus court costs, with six-months to pay.1

          {¶8}     Mr. Barry now appeals raising two assignments of error for our review.

                                                   II.

                                    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

          THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
          ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE IN
          VIOLATION OF EVID.R. 403 AND 404(B), AND [THE] FIFTH, SIXTH,
          AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
          CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO
          CONSTITUTION.

          {¶9}     In his first assignment of error, Mr. Barry argues the trial court committed

reversible error by allowing other acts evidence at trial.        Specifically, Mr. Barry contends

testimony regarding the destruction of the Nike Air Jordan sneakers should not have been allowed

because this incident occurred at a different time than the destruction of the backpack and clothing.

          1
              The record indicates Mr. Barry has not yet paid the fine or costs associated with this
matter.
                                                  4

       {¶10} The record reveals, at trial, Mr. Barry did not object to the admission of evidence

regarding the Nike Air Jordan sneakers based upon other acts evidence or for any other reason.

See Marsico v. Skrzypek, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010410, 2014-Ohio-5185, ¶ 6. (“It is well

settled that the failure to timely object to a possible error results in a forfeiture of the issue for

purposes of appeal.”). While a party failing to object in the trial court can argue plain error on

appeal, Mr. Barry has not done so, and this Court will not create an argument for him. Rivenbark

v. Discount Drug Mart, 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0089-M, 2018-Ohio-4072, ¶ 24.

       {¶11} Accordingly, Mr. Barry’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       [MR. BARRY’S] CONVICTION WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
       EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW.

       {¶12} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Barry argues his conviction for criminal

damaging or endangering is not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Mr. Barry argues

the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr. Barry knowingly ripped B.B.’s backpack.

For the following reasons, we disagree.

       {¶13} “Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law that

this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24731, 2009-Ohio-6955, ¶

18, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry is whether the

prosecution has met its burden of production by presenting sufficient evidence to sustain a

conviction. Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J., concurring). For purposes of a sufficiency analysis, this

Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not evaluate credibility, and we make all reasonable inferences in

favor of the State. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). The evidence is sufficient if it
                                                  5

allows the trier of fact to reasonably conclude that the essential elements of the crime were proven

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

       {¶14} R.C. 2909.06(A)(1) states: “[n]o person shall cause, or create a substantial risk of

physical harm to any property of another without the other person’s consent: [k]nowingly, by any

means[.]” Further, a person acts “knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that

the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A

person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably

exist.” R.C. 2901.22(B).

       {¶15} Here, the record reveals Mr. Barry stipulated to ripping B.B.’s backpack, stating:

“I did rip the book bag.” Moreover, Ms. Rudolpho testified she saw Mr. Barry rip the backpack

with his hands, stating: “[h]e was pulling stuff out of it and * * * then he ripped it. * * * He took

it and just ripped it.” In viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we cannot say

the Stated failed to prove Mr. Barry knowingly ripped the backpack.

       {¶16} Accordingly, Mr. Barry’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 III.

       {¶17} Mr. Barry’s two assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina

Municipal Court is affirmed.

                                                                                 Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Medina Municipal

Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
                                                 6

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                     BETTY SUTTON
                                                     FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

YI MI KIM-REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

J. MATTHEW LANIER, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.