from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No.
Terrence K. Scott for Appellant.
L. Kohlrieser for Appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Evred J. Logan ("Logan"),
appeals the May 9, 2016 judgment entry of sentence of the
Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
This case stems from an agreement between Logan and Timothy
Cole ("Cole") and Jenna Shofner
("Shofner") in which Logan agreed to provide Cole and
Shofner heroin in exchange for performing renovation-work at
Logan's house. Unsurprisingly, the agreement soured and
Logan allegedly compelled Cole and Shofner to perform
renovation work at his house against their will on December
On February 11, 2016, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted
Logan on three counts, including: Count One of kidnapping in
violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(6), (C)(1), a first-degree
felony; Count Two of kidnapping in violation of R.C.
2905.01(A)(6), (C)(1), a first-degree felony; and Count Three
of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1),
(D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony. (Doc. No. 3). Counts One
and Two of the indictment include a specification under R.C.
2941.145(A) alleging that Logan committed the offenses with a
On February 19, 2016, Logan appeared for arraignment and
entered pleas of not guilty. (Doc. No. 12).
Prior to the start of trial, Logan's trial counsel
informed the trial court that Logan wished to proceed pro se.
(Mar. 28-30, 2016 Tr., Vol. I, at 4-5). The trial court
conducted an ex parte hearing with Logan and his trial
counsel regarding Logan's reasoning for his decision,
then discussed, on the record, Logan's decision to
represent himself at trial. (See id. at 6-22,
23-31). After Logan singed a waiver of counsel, the trial
court permitted him to represent himself. (Id. at
32); (Doc. No. 62).
The case proceeded to a jury trial on March 28-30, 2016.
(Mar. 28-30 Tr., Vol. I, at 1); (Mar. 28-30, 2016 Tr., Vol.
II, at 263, 348). On March 30, 2016, the jury found Logan
guilty of the counts in the indictment and not guilty as to
the specifications in the indictment. (Doc. Nos. 66, 67, 68,
70); (Mar. 28-30, 2016 Tr., Vol. II, at 348-352). The trial
court filed its judgment entry of conviction that same day.
(Doc. No. 70). On May 9, 2016, the trial court sentenced
Logan to 4 years in prison on Count One, 4 years in prison on
Count Two, and 7 years in prison on Count Three, and ordered
that Logan serve the terms consecutively for an aggregate
sentence of 15 years in prison. (Doc. No. 73).
On June 8, 2016, Logan filed his notice of appeal. (Doc. No.
76). He raises two assignments of error for our review.
of Error No. I
trial court violated Evred J. Logan's rights to due
process and a fair trial when, in the absence of sufficient
evidence, Mr. Logan was convicted of Counts 1 and 2,
kidnapping. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio
Constitution. (Tr. p. 78-80, 84, 87, 88, 89, 152, 153, 157,
194, 201, and 203; May 9, 2016 Sentencing Hearing Tr. p. 13
In his first assignment of error, Logan argues that his
kidnapping convictions are based on insufficient
evidence. Specifically, Logan argues that there is
insufficient evidence that he restrained Cole's and
Shofner's liberty and that there is insufficient evidence
that he purposefully held Cole and Shofner in a condition of
"An appellate court's function when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction
is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the
average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259
(1981), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by
state constitutional amendment on other grounds,
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).
Accordingly, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt." Id. "In deciding if the evidence
was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor
assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions
reserved for the trier of fact." State v.
Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and
C-120571, 2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33, citing State v.
Williams, 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, ¶ 25
(1st Dist). See also State v. Berry, 3d Dist.
Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, ¶ 19
("Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy
rather than credibility or weight of the evidence."),
citing Thompkins at 386.
Logan was convicted of two counts of kidnapping in violation
of R.C. 2905.01(A)(6), which provides, in relevant part:
(A) No person, by force, threat, or deception * * * shall * *
* restrain the liberty of the other person, for any of the
(6) To hold in a condition of involuntary servitude.
Because they are the only elements Logan challenges on
appeal, we will address only whether the evidence, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is such
that a rational trier of fact could have found that: (1)
Logan restrained Cole's and Shofner's liberty; and
(2) Logan purposefully held Cole and Shofner in a condition
of involuntary servitude.
"Restraining an individual's liberty means limiting
or restraining their freedom of movement. The restraint need
not be for any specific duration or in any specific
manner." State v. Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 16AP-540, 2017-Ohio-5598, ¶ 19, citing State v.
Taylor, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-254,
2015-Ohio-2490, ¶ 18, citing 2 Ohio Jury
Instructions, CR Section 505.01(A) (Rev. Jan. 20, 2007).
A person acts purposely when it is the person's specific
intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the
offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature,
regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish
thereby, it is the ...