Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake
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).
R. Hinton, Hanahan & Hinton, LLC, (For
R. WRIGHT, J.
Appellant, Vincent K. Moore, Jr., appeals his conviction on
one count of grand theft challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence. We affirm.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ...