FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2016 01 0189
SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
SCHAFER, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Lamont T. Vinson, appeals his
convictions and sentence entered in the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm
in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On December 11, 2015, C.C. drove to her late mother's
house located on Manchester Road in Akron, Ohio. Upon
arriving at the house, C.C. discovered that the side door to
the home had been broken into and that some of her late
mother's jewelry had been stolen. C.C. reported this
incident to the police. The police ultimately located the
stolen items at Cashland, a financial services and retail
business located in Barberton, Ohio. Cashland's records
showed that on December 12, 2015, Vinson sold five pieces of
jewelry for $562.00. On December 15, 2015, C.C. retrieved her
late mother's jewelry from Cashland.
On February 1, 2016, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted
Vinson on one count of receiving stolen property in violation
of R.C. 2913.51(A), a fifth-degree felony, and one count of
aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1), also a fifth-degree felony. Vinson pleaded
not guilty to both counts contained in the indictment and the
matter ultimately proceeded to a one-day jury trial.
On June 13, 2016, the morning of trial, Vinson pleaded guilty
to the aggravated possession of drugs count contained within
the indictment. The matter proceeded to trial on the
remaining count for receiving stolen property. At the close
of the State's case-in-chief, Vinson made a Crim.R. 29
motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court
denied. Vinson then testified on his own behalf. At the close
of evidence, Vinson renewed his Crim.R. 29 motion, which the
trial court again denied. The jury ultimately found Vinson
guilty of receiving stolen property, but found the value of
the stolen property to be less than $1, 000.00. Thus, the
jury convicted Vinson of a first-degree misdemeanor instead
of a fifth-degree felony. See R.C. 2913.51(C). The
trial court subsequently sentenced Vinson according to law.
Vinson filed this timely appeal and raises three assignments
of error for this Court's review. To facilitate our
analysis, we elect to address Vinson's first and second
assignments of error together.
of Error I
Vinson's conviction for receiving stolen property was
against the ...