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.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant, John Lehman, appeals from his conviction
in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court
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
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.
Mr. Lehman now appeals from his conviction and raises one
assignment of error for this Court's review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
[MR] LEHMAN'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE, MERITING REVERSAL.
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
When a defendant argues that his conviction is against the
weight of the evidence, this court must review all ...