APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DL 12-08-001899
SHERYL A. TRZASKA, Assistant State Public Defender, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
EVE V. BELFANCE, Presiding Judge.
(¶1} Defendant-Appellant C. A. appeals from the decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
(¶2} On June 18, 2012, around 8:30 p.m., Daryle Dean was driving his car near the intersection of Blanche and La Croix Streets in Akron when gunshots were fired at his vehicle. Based upon that incident, a complaint was filed against then 15-year-old C.A. alleging that C.A. was delinquent in committing acts that would constitute felonious assault if committed by an adult. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to add a firearm specification. The matter proceeded to trial, and the court adjudicated C.A. delinquent of felonious assault and the firearm specification. C.A. was committed to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum term of two years and a maximum term of age twenty-one. C.A. has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
[C.A'S] ADJUDICATIONS FOR FELONIOUS ASSAULT AND THE CORRESPONDING FIREARM SPECIFICATION WERE SUPPORTED BY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF [C.A'S] RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
(¶3} C.A. asserts in his sole assignment of error that his adjudications were based upon insufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We do not agree.
(¶4} "When considering this issue, this Court applies the same standard of review as that applied in an adult criminal context." In re L.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25693, 2012-Ohio- 1025, ¶ 7. "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).
An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any ...