State v. McCreary

Decision Date18 May 1964
Citation120 Ohio App. 346,200 N.E.2d 787
Parties, 29 O.O.2d 175 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Norman McCREARY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Raymond E. Shannon and William S. Mathews, Cincinnati, for plaintiff-appellee.

Paul H. Tobias, Cincinnati, for defendant-appellant.

HOVER, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant of his conviction in the court below of the crime of larceny of property having a value in excess of $60.00; that is, so-called grand larceny.

The record shows that defendant was indicted guilty thereto; that he was assigned counsel to represent him, and that on December 16, to represent him and that on December 16, 1963, he retracted his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of 'guilty as charged'. As the result of this plea, a judgment of conviction of 'grand larceny' was entered and the defendant sentenced to the Ohio State Reformatory at Mansfield.

Some thirty-nine days after this judgment was docketed, new counsel acting on behalf of defendant, filed a motion to set it aside on three grounds: (1) that the verdict, that is the judgment, was improperly entered; (2) that the court at the time of entering judgment and sentencing did not determine the value of the property admittedly stolen; and (3) that the defendant was entitled to have this determination made by a jury since no written waiver of defendant's right to a jury was entered in the case. The court overruled the motion but placed of record an Order amending the original judgment wherein the court found, after the taking of testimony in open court, that the value of the property stolen was $75.00, and re-entered its original judgment and sentence.

From this amended judgment the defendant appealed to this Court in a timely manner. Defendant raises here substantially the same objections to the judgment and sentence as were called to the attention of the court below by the motion to set aside the judgment.

While the applicable penal statute of Ohio, Section 2907.20 of the Revised Code, does not use either of the terms 'grand larceny' or 'petit larceny' as those phrases are generally used in the law, the defendant however was indicted for stealing something of value, to-wit, $80.00. To this indictment he ultimately plead 'guilty as charged'. There is no provision in the law relative to larceny as there is in the law relative to homicide permitting a plea to a general classification of crime with the exact degree to be subsequently determined either by a jury or by a court. The statute (R.C. § 2945.75) relative to the question of value as to affects the penalty to be imposed for the larceny, requires that a jury determine the value of the property stolen or, in the event a jury be waived, that the judge perform the same function.

The statute is not applicable here bacause the defendant chose to plead guilty to the indictment. This plea covers the entire...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2001
    ...the individual. See State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, 90 Wis. 2d 528, 539, 280 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1979); State v. McCreary, 200 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). Campbell thus admitted when he pleaded guilty that he forged a $350 check. [4] ¶ 9. Forging a check is a felony in Wiscons......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT