FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 18CR097834
GIOVANNA BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and DANIELLELA BEARDEN,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Appellant, Roderick Cross, appeals his convictions by the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms in
part and reverses in part.
On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Marshals Violent Fugitive Task
Force knocked on the door of a home in Elyria, Ohio in search
of Mr. Cross because they had credible information leading
them to believe that he was staying with the owner of the
home. The owner, S.G., acknowledged that Mr. Cross was
present and allowed the officers to enter. Mr. Cross walked
into an open area near the front of the house and identified
himself as "Brandon Keith." Officers familiar with
Mr. Cross suspected that this was a false name, but Mr. Cross
was adamant about his identity.
As officers conducted a protective sweep of the residence,
Mr. Cross shouted that they would find a gun on a nightstand
in the back bedroom. Meanwhile, Mr. Cross continued to
maintain that he was Brandon Keith. The officers found a
loaded handgun in the location that Mr. Cross identified.
Nearby, they also found a laser sight and identification
belonging to Brandon Keith. According to the officers at the
scene, Mr. Cross ultimately admitted his true identity and
acknowledged that he owned the handgun.
Mr. Cross was charged with having a weapon while under
disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), identity fraud
in violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(2), and possessing criminal
tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). Mr. Cross waived his
right to a trial by jury, and the trial court found him
guilty of each charge. The trial court sentenced Mr. Cross to
prison terms of twelve months on each charge, and Mr. Cross
filed this appeal.
OF ERROR NO. 1
THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE
FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE STATE OF OHIO.
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Cross argues that each
of his convictions is supported by insufficient evidence.
This court agrees in part.
"Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient
evidence is a question of law that this Court reviews de
novo." State v. Williams, 9th Dist Summit No
24731, 2009-Ohio-6955, ¶ 18, citing State v Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997) The relevant inquiry is whether
the prosecution has met its burden of production by
presenting sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction
Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J, concurring). In reviewing the
evidence, we do not evaluate credibility, and we make all
reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v.
Jenks,61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). The evidence ...