Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas TRIAL NO.
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip
Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David
Hoffman, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Robert Braden
was found guilty of burglary, a second-degree felony, in
violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), and sentenced to a six-year
prison term. In his first assignment of error, Braden claims
that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence
and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the
following reasons, we reverse Braden's conviction and
hold that he is guilty of the lesser-included offense of
third-degree burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), to
which he stipulated.
Bruce Hust lived alone in a house in the West Price Hill
neighborhood of Cincinnati. He was an employee of the
Hamilton County Juvenile Court. His work hours were
approximately 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
On the morning of August 27, 2015, Hust left for work and
returned home at 5:00 p.m. Hust found his house ransacked,
and his late mother's wedding rings missing. Hust called
the police. Meanwhile, a nearby pawn shop where Robert
Braden, the grandson of Hust's neighbor, pawned the
wedding rings that same day, alerted police.
Braden was initially charged with, and pled guilty to,
receiving stolen property in violation of RC. 2913.51. He was
sentenced to six months in jail. That conviction is not the
subject of this appeal.
Sometime later, a piece of discarded candy found in
Hust's home was DNA-tested, and the DNA matched
Braden's. Braden was then charged with, and convicted of,
burglary, and sentenced to six years in prison. He now
appeals his burglary conviction and brings the following four
assignments of error for our review:
1. The Trial Court Erred in Finding Defendant-Appellant
Guilty, as the Finding Was Based on Insufficient Evidence and
Was Contrary to Law.
2. The Trial Court Erred in Overruling the
Defendant-Appellant's Motion to Dismiss.
3. The [Defendant-]Appellant was Deprived of His Right to the
Effective Assistance of Counsel at Trial.
4. The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Credit
[Defendant-Appellant's] Burglary Sentence with His
Incarceration for Receiving Stolen Property.