Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake

June 19, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VINCENT K. MOORE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

         Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 000352. Judgment: Affirmed.

          Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Anna C. Kelley, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

          Cory R. Hinton, Hanahan & Hinton, LLC, (For Defendant-Appellant).

          OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Vincent K. Moore, Jr., appeals his conviction on one count of grand theft challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

         {¶2} In July 2015, Bryan Blow owned a 2005 Ford F-350 truck. After seeing another truck that he liked better, Bryan listed his truck for internet sale on Craigslist. Within a few weeks, appellant contacted Bryan about the truck, and the two men met at a motorcycle dealership in Mentor, Ohio, so appellant and his friend could test-drive the truck. According to Bryan, when they first met, appellant introduced himself as "Jameer." Bryan identified appellant at trial.

         {¶3} Eventually, Bryan agreed to sell the truck to appellant for $12, 500. On August 6, 2015, the two men met again at the Mentor branch of Cardinal Community Credit Union to close the deal.

         {¶4} Sometime before August 6, 2015, two separate loan applications were submitted with Cardinal Community for approval. The first application was submitted to the Richmond Heights branch with appellant listed as the loan applicant. This application was not approved due to insufficient income disclosure. The second application was submitted to the Mentor branch, listing appellant's brother, Jameel Moore, as the applicant. Attached to this application were documents showing that Jameel was currently working as a shift manager at a local PaPa John's restaurant. The documents also stated that Jameel had been employed by PaPa John's for three years, and earned $19, 200 for the first seven months of 2015. This application was approved.

         {¶5} The credit union, however, did not verify the income information until after the first loan payment was missed in September 2015. At that time, PaPa John's informed the credit union that Jameel was never an employee. PaPa John's further indicated that, although appellant previously worked at the restaurant, his employment ended in 2013.

         {¶6} According to Bryan, only appellant met him at the Mentor branch on August 6, 2015. Yet, all of closing papers for the loan were executed in Jameel's name. Furthermore, when the loan officer asked to see a driver's license for verification, he was given Jameel's license.

         {¶7} Once the paper work for the loan was finished, Cardinal Community gave Bryan a check for $14, 000. In turn, Bryan cashed the check, kept $12, 500 and delivered the remaining $1, 500 to appellant, along with the Ford truck. Title to the truck was transferred from Bryan to Jameel, even though the credit union retained the actual title as collateral on the loan.

         {¶8} No payments were ever made on the loan. When the first payment was missed in September 2015, the loan was "flagged" by a credit advisor manager at the Mentor branch. After initially trying to contact Jameel directly, the manager contacted PaPa John's. Upon learning that the employment and income documents were fabricated, the manager compared Jameel's application with the application filed under appellant's name at the Richmond Heights branch, and saw that some of the general information provided in each application was quite similar, such as home address.

         {¶9} Ultimately, the credit union contacted the Mentor City Police Department and informed them of the situation. As part of the ensuing investigation, a detective showed two photo lineups to Bryan and the loan officer who assisted in finalizing the loan on August 6, 2015. The first photo lineup included a picture of appellant, while the second lineup had Jameel's picture. In addition to identifying appellant as the man who executed the loan documents at the Mentor branch, neither Bryan nor the loan officer recognized Jameel.

         {¶10} Appellant was indicted on one count of grand theft, two counts of forgery, and one count of identity fraud. Immediately prior to appellant's trial in July 2016, the state dismissed the identity fraud charge and also filed a notice of complicity regarding the grand theft charge. The notice asserted that appellant either acted as the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.