FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 15 12 3742
D. WALLACE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY.
A. TEODOSIO J.
Appellant, Jurmaine K. Brinkley, appeals his conviction and
sentence from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,
finding him guilty of aggravated robbery with a firearm
specification, and sentencing him to a total of thirteen
years. This Court affirms.
Mr. Brinkley was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery
with a firearm specification stemming from the robbery of a
convenience store on November 16, 2015. The case went to
trial and the jury found Mr. Brinkley guilty. The trial court
sentenced Mr. Brinkley to ten years for the offense of
aggravated robbery and imposed a mandatory three-year
sentence on the firearm specification to run consecutively as
required by law. Mr. Brinkley now appeals, raising four
assignments of error, which have been reordered for the
purpose of discussion.
OF ERROR THREE
TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED
TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION.
OF ERROR ONE
CONVICTION WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE AND THE JURY LOST ITS WAY WHEN IT FOUND THE
In his third assignment of error, Mr. Brinkley argues the
trial court erred when it overruled his Crim.R. 29 motion for
acquittal and submitted the case to the jury for
deliberations. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Brinkley
argues the manifest weight of the evidence does not support
his conviction. We disagree with both arguments. The Court
notes that Mr. Brinkley does not challenge the fact that an
aggravated robbery occurred, but rather disputes that he was
Shortly after midnight on November 16, 2015, Mr. Brinkley
entered a convenience store, walked down an aisle, and left
soon thereafter without purchasing anything. Mr. Brinkley
lived with his siblings and their grandmother about a
three-minute walk away from the store. Approximately twenty
minutes later, a man dressed in black entered the store,
pointed a gun at the cashier's face, and demanded that
she put the register money in a bag he was holding. The man
was dressed in black, his face covered by black fabric and
his head covered by the hood of his sweatshirt. The cashier
opened the registers and put the money in the bag as
instructed. After the gunman left, the police were called.
At trial, the cashier testified that she knew Mr. Brinkley by
sight, though not by name, as he had come into the store a
few times before. She denied ever having a conversation with
Mr. Brinkley, or ever hearing his voice, but said that she
had approximately four prior interactions with him. On the
night of the robbery, the cashier was working alone, and had
asked one of the regular customers to stay with her while Mr.
Brinkley was in the store because of feeling a "weird
The cashier testified that the gunman was wearing
fishnet-like hosiery over his head and a black hood with
drawstrings. She said that his voice was not familiar to her.
She stated that although she could not see his hair, she
could still see his face through the hosiery, and recognized
him as the regular customer who had been in the store earlier
that night, who was later identified as Mr. Brinkley.
Although she was looking down for much of her interaction
with the gunman, she testified that she had no doubt that it
was Mr. Brinkley and that he was holding a gun. The cashier
estimated the gunman's height as between six feet to six
feet and four inches. Mr. Brinkley testified that his actual
height was six feet and three inches. The cashier later
identified Mr. Brinkley from a police photograph array, and
identified Mr. Brinkley in the courtroom at trial.
Mr. Brinkley's grandmother testified that she has had
custody of her grandson since he was two or three years old
and that he lives with her and his siblings within walking
distance of the convenience store. After she had learned of
the robbery and that the police were looking for her
grandson, she arranged to watch the store surveillance video
from that night. She gave a written statement to the police,
produced as evidence by the prosecution, which provided:
"I watched the video at the [convenience store] and that
is my grandson, Jurmaine Brinkley. The video was the robbery
of [the store]." She further testified that Mr. Brinkley
did not return home after the morning of November 16, and
that she did not know his whereabouts for one or two days,
until she was informed that he was in Michigan. Upon being
shown the video at trial, the grandmother testified that she
was not sure if the gunman was her grandson. Upon
cross-examination, she testified that she had been mistaken
when she gave her statement to the police, and that it was
not her grandson in the video.