APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 12 01 0038 (A).
CHRISTOPHER R. SNYDER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
(¶1} Appellant Rayonte Jones appeals his conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
(¶2} Jones was indicted on two counts of robbery involving two teenagers; one count of aggravated robbery and a companion gun specification; one count of receiving stolen property; and one count of misuse of credit cards. He pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment. Jones was subsequently indicted on two additional gun specifications related to the two counts of robbery. Those two gun specifications were dismissed prior to trial. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Jones not guilty of two counts of robbery, but guilty of aggravated robbery and the companion gun specification, receiving stolen property, and misuse of credit cards. The trial court sentenced Jones to eight years in prison. Jones filed a timely appeal and raises two assignments of error for review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SUPPORT CONVICTIONS OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, OR MISUSE OF CREDIT CARDS AND AS A RESULT THE APPELLENT'S RIGHTS AS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED.
(¶3} Jones argues that his convictions for receiving stolen property and misuse of credit cards were not supported by sufficient evidence. This Court disagrees.
(¶4} "Raising the question of whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law invokes a due process concern." State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, ¶ 113, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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." Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d at ¶ 113, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
(¶5} Jones was charged with receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), which states that "[n]o person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense." The ...