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. Lehman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

March 28, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
JOHN LEHMAN Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2017-01-0200

          KRISTEN KOWALSKI, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, Judge.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, John Lehman, appeals from his conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} The victims in this case are a married couple who reside in a single-family home in Richfield. On the morning of September 14, 2016, someone burglarized their home while they were at work. The wife homeowner discovered the break-in when she came home at lunchtime to care for their dogs. Video surveillance taken from the home, in conjunction with further investigation, led to the police identifying Mr. Lehman as the perpetrator.

         {¶3} A grand jury indicted Mr. Lehman on a single count of burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2). Mr. Lehman waived his right to a jury, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. On the day of trial, Mr. Lehman stipulated to all of the essential elements of his charge, save for the one requiring the State to prove that someone was likely to be present in the home when he burglarized it. After hearing the evidence, the court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years in prison.

         {¶4} Mr. Lehman now appeals from his conviction and raises one assignment of error for this Court's review.

         II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
[MR] LEHMAN'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, MERITING REVERSAL.

         {¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Lehman argues that his burglary conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, he argues that the court lost its way when it found that someone was likely to be present at the time he burglarized the homeowners' residence. This Court disagrees.

         {¶6} When a defendant argues that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence, this court must review all ...


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.