State v. Cornelius, Case No. 15CA13
| Decision Date | 16 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15CA13 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROYCE DARNELL CORNELIUS Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
For Plaintiff-Appellee
DANIEL ROGERS
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, OH 44902
For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM BRINGMAN
13 East College Street
Fredericktown, OH 43019
{¶1} Appellant Royce Darnell Cornelius ["Cornelius"] appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas on Receiving Stolen Property-Motor Vehicle, a fourth degree felony pursuant to R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C).
{¶2} On July 8, 2014, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted Cornelius on one (1) count of Receiving Stolen Property-Motor Vehicle, a fourth degree felony pursuant to R.C. 2913.51(A) & (C). The following facts were presented during Cornelius's jury trial.
{¶3} Sometime between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm on May 23, 2014, Rodney Mays left his house in Mansfield, Ohio and drove his blue 1997 Chevy Astro Van to McCune Cycle on Ashland Road to look for an ATV. Mays parked the van in the McCune Cycle parking lot and walked inside, accidentally leaving his keys inside of the vehicle.
{¶4} Michael Gortner arrived at McCune Cycle shortly after Mays. Gortner noticed a person later identified as Nicholas "Jay" Ray standing outside of McCune Cycle near the mailbox. Gortner became suspicious of Ray. After speaking briefly with Ray, Gortner went inside to purchase supplies for his motorcycle and left Ray alone outside in the parking lot.
{¶5} Approximately 15 to 30 minutes after entering McCune Cycle, Mays realized his keys were inside the van. Upon exiting the store, Mays discovered the van missing from the parking lot. Mays went back inside the business and told the cashier and Gortner about the theft of his van. Gortner then told Mays about encountering Rayin the parking lot and Ray's strange behavior. Mays called the Mansfield Police Department and asked Gortner to stay at McCune Cycle to tell police about the encounter with Ray.
{¶6} Officer Kory Kaufman responded to the business at 3:04 p.m. and interviewed Mays and Gortner. Mays provided Officer Kaufman with a full description of his vehicle. Gortner provided a description of the man he encountered in the parking lot. Officer Kaufman suspected Ray, based upon Gortner's description, which matched a previous description of Ray. Officer Kaufman was aware that Ray had been suspected of stealing several vehicles in the area. Officer Kaufman used his computer to show Gortner several photos, including one of Ray. Gortner identified Ray as the man he saw in the McCune Cycle parking lot. Officer Kaufman put the description of the van over the radio and the computer. He also told his dispatcher to enter the vehicle into the NCIC database as stolen.
{¶7} A few hours later, Detective Frank Parrella, saw a van parked next to a trailer across from the apartment building at 1095 Longview Avenue. The van matched the description put out by Officer Kaufman as the missing Astro van. Detective Parrella ran the license plate and confirmed the van next to the trailer was the vehicle reported as stolen.
{¶8} Detective Parrella parked in front of a storage unit and watched the van. Approximately two minutes later, the vehicle pulled out and headed east on Longview Avenue toward Trimble Road. Detective Parrella followed the van. Detective Parrella was in an unmarked car so he called for back up to make the stop of the van.
{¶9} As Detective Parrella and the stolen van traveled south on Trimble Road, Ohio State Trooper Gillum began following Detective Parrella, ultimately stopping the detective for speeding. After Detective Parrella explained the situation, he and Trooper Gillum resumed following the van until the vehicle pulled into the Speedway gas station. Detective Parrella and Trooper Gillum entered the Speedway parking lot, surrounding the van. Cornelius was in the driver seat of the van. Detective Parrella and Trooper Gillum approached the van and held the four occupants at gunpoint until back up arrived. After additional officers arrived, the four occupants were removed from the van and placed in separate squad cars.
{¶10} Sergeant Don Rhinehart arrived at Speedway and interviewed Cornelius. Cornelius told Sergeant Rhinehart he did not know the reason for his arrest. Sergeant Rhinehart told Cornelius about someone stealing the Astro van. Cornelius stated he rented the van from "Raheem" for $50.00 and did not know about the van being stolen. Cornelius provided no other information concerning Raheem or the process of renting the vehicle from Raheem.
{¶11} In the days following Cornelius' arrest, Officer Kaufman learned from Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Deb Woodward that Cornelius changed his story and claimed he rented the Astro van from a person known as "Jay." Officer Kaufman told Prosecutor Woodward that Cornelius's description of "Jay" matched Ray and Prosecutor Woodward suggested putting together a photo lineup. Upon seeing the photo lineup, Cornelius identified Ray as the "Jay" from whom he rented the van.
{¶12} Cornelius testified that he has rented vehicles from private parties numerous times in the past. He further testified that he provided a description thatmatched that of Ray when he initially spoke to the police. Cornelius testified that he was unaware of Ray's criminal background. Lakeeron Lane and Searia Mason each testified on Cornelius's behalf that they have also rented vehicles both to and from private individuals in the past and did not inspect driver licenses or insurance documents before concluding the transactions.
{¶13} After deliberations, the jury found Cornelius guilty of Receiving Stolen Property-Motor Vehicle, a fourth degree felony pursuant to R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C).
{¶14} On February 2, 2015, the trial court sentenced Cornelius to 14 months incarceration and 3 years of discretionary post-release control.
{¶17} Cornelius' sole assignment of error relates to the propriety of the trial court's rendering its judgment of conviction. Subsumed within this generalized objection are four challenges. Specifically, Cornelius contends that: (1) the judgment of conviction is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence; (2) Cornelius was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial court erred in permitting the state to use leading questions during its case-in-chief; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that it is not required to render a verdict.
{¶18} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to determine whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.; see also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 130 S.Ct. 665, 673, 175 L.Ed.2d 582(2010) (reaffirming this standard); State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 926 N.E.2d 1239, 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶146; State v. Clay, 187 Ohio App.3d 633, 933 N.E.2d 296, 2010-Ohio-2720, ¶68.
{¶19} Weight of the evidence addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated by State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668, 1997-Ohio-355. Weight of the evidence concerns (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) at 1594.
{¶20} When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a "'thirteenth juror'" and disagrees with the fact finder's resolution of the conflictingtestimony. Id. at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). However, an appellate court may not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, but must find that "'the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.'" State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 (1st Dist. 1983). Accordingly, reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for "'the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.'" Id.
To continue reading
Request your trial