State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 06 May 1981 |
| Citation | 440 N.E.2d 580,2 Ohio App.3d 20,2 OBR 21 |
| Parties | , 2 O.B.R. 21 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The "purpose to commit a felony" element in R.C. 2911.13(B), breaking and entering, may be formed while the trespass is in progress, and the plan need not be fashioned prior to the trespass.
Simon L. Leis, Jr., Christian J. Schaefer and Kerry Beringhaus, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Gustin & Lawrence Co., L.P.A., Richard D. Lawrence and D. Shannon Smith, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
There is one assignment of error which asserts that:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellant by finding him guilty of 'breaking and entering,' R.C. 2911.13, after defendant-appellant entered a plea of no contest."
The essence of the factual scenario which eventuated into the breaking and entering conviction may be summarized by stating that defendant-appellant, Miles D. Jones, in company of another, mistakenly entered the house of Richard Navaro (believing it to be the dwelling of someone else who was their friend). They did not realize the mistake until they were inside and turned on the light. Navaro awakened, descended the stairs and saw Jones disconnecting his stereo. Jones also had moved Navaro's camera to a location whence it appeared he intended to remove it from Navaro's house. Jones was indicted for aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11, but he entered his plea of no contest to the crime of breaking and entering. Just how this was engineered is somewhat puzzling, but neither party presents it as an issue in this appeal; and, thus, we do not evaluate the regularity of this facially novel procedure. It seems to have been part of the plea bargaining which transpired in the trial court. Resultantly, we are bound to assume that the no contest plea entered by Jones was in effect responding not to the indicted crime of aggravated burglary, but rather to the plea-bargained crime of breaking and entering. Therefore, the question sub judice becomes: was the language of the indictment sufficient to include all the elements of breaking and entering? Crim.R. 11(B)(2). (The state and defense counsel agreed on the facts which constituted the wrongdoing.)
R.C. 2911.13, breaking and entering, reads, in relevant part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clelland
...App.3d 499, 591 N.E.2d 405; State v. Morris (May 4, 1988), Summit App. No. 13406, unreported, 1988 WL 49479; State v. Jones (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 20, 2 OBR 21, 440 N.E.2d 580. Although the Ohio Supreme Court has not addressed this exact issue, in State v. Powell (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 62, 63......
-
State v. Gragg
...trespass or entry is achieved. State v. Bowling (Aug. 12, 1985), Clermont App. No. CA85-01-001, at 5, citing State v. Jones (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 20, 2 OBR 21, 440 N.E.2d 580 (the "purpose to commit a felony" element in R.C. 2911.13(B) may be formed while the trespass is in progress, and th......
-
State v. Ronald D. Foth
... ... No. C-930159, unreported; ... State v. Arnold (June 30, 1993), Geauga App. No ... 91-G-1671, unreported; State v. Houseman (1990), 70 ... Ohio App.3d 499, 513; State v. Morris (May 4, 1988), ... Summit App. No. 13406, unreported; State v. Jones ... (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 20, 21. See, also, State v ... Powell (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 62, paragraph one of the ... syllabus (holding that aggravated burglary continues so long ... as the defendant remains in the structure being burglarized); ... State v. Steffen ... ...
-
State v. Lewis, 1716
...that the purpose to commit a theft offense could be formed after a trespass had occurred. Appellee relies on State v. Jones (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 20, 2 OBR 21, 440 N.E.2d 580. We find appellee's reliance to be R.C. 2911.11 defines "aggravated burglary" as: "No person, by force, stealth, or ......