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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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