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. Killeen

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

June 10, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
KEVIN G. KILLEEN Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2017CRB01319

          GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          GRETCHEN A. HOLDERMAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.

         {¶1} Kevin Killeen appeals his convictions in the Elyria Municipal Court for violating two provisions of the Village of Grafton's codified ordinances. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Killeen owns two adjacent parcels in the Village that have been in his wife's family for almost 80 years. One parcel has a house and driveway on it that Mr. Killeen rents out. The other may have had a cottage on it at some point, but has been vacant for decades. The current tenant of the house has multiple vehicles and was parking some of them on the vacant parcel. After receiving complaints about the mud his vehicles were bringing into the street, the tenant scraped up an area of grass on the vacant parcel and laid down a gravel driveway. The Village subsequently cited Mr. Killeen for violating its paving and permitted uses ordinances.

          After a jury found Mr. Killeen guilty of the offenses, the trial court sentenced him to thirty days in jail, which it suspended. Mr. Killeen has appealed, assigning three errors.

         II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOALTES THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO.

         {¶3} Mr. Killeen argues that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution:

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. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any ...

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.