Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Coshocton
from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 16CR0017 Affirmed
Plaintiff-Appellee JASON W. GIVEN
Defendant-Appellant DAN GUINN
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E.
Wise, Jr., J.
1} Defendant-Appellant, Willie Norfleet, Jr., appeals his
July 18, 2016 conviction and sentence of the Court of Common
Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is the
state of Ohio.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} On February 29, 2015, the Coshocton County Grand Jury
indicted appellant on one count of aggravated burglary with a
firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2911.11 and
2941.141, four counts of kidnapping in violation of RC.
2905.01, one count of carrying a concealed weapon in
violation of R.C. 2923.12, one count of having a weapon while
under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13, and one count
of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12. Said
charges arose from an incident involving appellant and his
two brothers, Josh and Jason, and the victims, Linda Murray,
Samantha Crenshaw, Carrie Goff, and Brittany Harris, at the
home of Ms. Murray on February 3, 2016.
3} A jury trial commenced on July 12, 2016. The jury found
appellant guilty of the aggravated burglary count with the
firearm specification and the four counts of kidnapping, and
not guilty of the remaining counts. By judgment entry filed
July 18, 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten
years on the aggravated burglary count with an additional
mandatory three years for the firearm specification, and five
years on each of the kidnapping counts, to be served
consecutively, for a total term of thirty-three years in
4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before
this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as
5} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY AND
KIDNAPPING WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES AS THE COURT FAILED TO ENGAGE IN THE
REQUISITE THREE PART ANALYSIS REQUIRED TO SENTENCE ONE TO
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES BY FAILING TO FIND ANY OF THE THREE
FACTORS LISTED IN ORC 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) APPLIED."
7} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims his
conviction for aggravated burglary and kidnapping were
against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
8} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to
examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses
and 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 ordered." State v.
Martin,20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st
Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. The granting of a
new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional
case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction." Martin at 175. We note the weight
to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 237 N.E.2d 212 (1967). The
trier of fact "has the best ...