Christopher T. Travis, Stevensville, Michigan, for appellant.
Mark Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph L. Hale, Scioto County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
William H. Harsha, Judge.
(¶1} Anthony Sizemore appeals his convictions for theft from an elderly person and burglary, arguing that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Sizemore contends it was undisputed that he was previously invited into the victim's home, thus providing a legitimate reason for why his blood was found at the scene. However, the victim testified that the blood was not there before the burglary and credibility is generally an issue for the trier of fact, so we reject this argument.
(¶2} Sizemore also contends that law enforcement never recovered any of the stolen items and there were no eye witnesses to the crime. However, the victim testified about the items taken from her home, including a drill and type of liverwurst. The victim's neighbor also testified that after the burglary Sizemore showed him a drill case and asked if he knew anyone who would want to purchase a drill. Moreover, Sizemore was living with another of the victim's neighbors at the time of the offense and after the burglary the victim identified liverwurst found in the neighbor's refrigerator as the same kind taken from her home. Because the state presented credible evidence upon which the jury could have reasonably concluded that Sizemore committed the essential elements of the offenses, his convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
(¶3} Sizemore was convicted of the burglary and theft of Gladys Love's home while she was out of town. At the time of the offense, Sizemore and his girlfriend were living with his friend, Arnett Hogston. Hogston was a long time neighbor to 78-year-old Love and regularly helped her with home improvement projects. On the day in question, Sizemore accompanied Hogston to paint several rooms in Love's home. A few hours after they arrived, Love received a phone call and requested that they leave because she had to visit her grandson. Love returned the next morning to discover that her house had been burglarized and several items of her property were missing.
(¶4} The state charged Sizemore with one count of burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (C), and one count of theft of an elderly person, in violation of R.C. 2913.01(A)(1) and (B)(3). He pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
(¶5} At trial, the state alleged that Sizemore forced entry into Love's home through a bedroom window and took several items, including food, money and tools. The state also introduced evidence that two blood stains found on a bed sheet under the broken window matched Sizemore's DNA. The jury found Sizemore guilty of both counts and after merging his convictions, the trial court imposed sentence. This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
(¶6} Sizemore raises one assignment of error for our review:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT-DEFENDANT BY ENTERING A GUILTY FINDING UPON A VERDICT THAT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
(¶7} To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of witnesses to determine "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 ...