Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee D. MICHAEL HADDOX Prosecuting Attorney By:
GERALD V. ANDERSON II Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
Defendant-Appellant DAVID A. SAMS.
Patricia A. Delaney Hon. John W. Wise Hon. Craig R. Baldwin,
Defendant-appellant Deano McCort appeals his conviction from
the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on one count of
burglary. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On December 3, 2015, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted
appellant on one count of burglary in violation of R.C.
2911.12(A)(3), a felony of the third degree, one count of
theft (less than $1, 000.00) of an elderly victim in
violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth
degree, and one count of possession of criminal tools in
violation of R.C. 2923.24(A), a felony of the fifth degree.
The burglary charge related to a burglary at the home of
Wilma Good, who was at all relevant times living in a nursing
home. At his arraignment on December 9, 2015, appellant
entered a plea of not guilty to all of the charges.
Subsequently, a jury trial commenced on February 23, 2016.
The jury, on the same date, found appellant guilty of all of
the charges. As memorialized in an Entry filed on April 5,
2016, appellant was sentenced to thirty-six (36) months in
Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on
I. THE CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY
SUFFICIENT PROOF OF AN 'OCCUPIED STRUCTURE'.
Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that his
conviction for burglary is against the sufficiency of the
evidence because there was not sufficient proof of an
"occupied structure" as required by R.C.
2911.12(A)(3). We disagree.
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the
syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held as follows:
"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 ...