State v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 23 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PATTERSON, Appellant. * 11272. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Lee C. Falke, Pros. Atty., Dayton, for appellee.
Jerry A. Meadows, Dayton, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Beverly Patterson, appeals from her conviction and sentence for theft by deception. Although Patterson pled no contest to the charge, she contends that the trial court erred by overruling her motion to dismiss the indictment because, even if she misrepresented her household situation in her application for food stamps, that misrepresentation did not result in her having received food stamps to which she was not entitled.
We conclude that the indictment pleads that Patterson obtained property or services of the state of Ohio as a result of a knowing misrepresentation. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Patterson's motion to dismiss the indictment, regardless of any deficiencies in the evidence that the state might have been able to offer in support of that allegation. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Patterson submitted an application for food stamps on September 28, 1985. At the beginning of Part 2 of the form, the following sentence is printed:
In Part 2 of her application for food stamps, Patterson listed herself, her son, Tony Moreland, a daughter and two grandchildren as members of her household. In the part of the application entitled "Resources," Patterson answered the following question negatively:
"Does anyone in your household own (or is anyone buying) any cars, trucks, boats, campers, motorcycles, or other vehicles?"
Also, within this section of the form, she was asked to list amounts for certain items "for each household member, including children" (emphasis sic). The items included IRA accounts, KEOGH plans, "Credit Union," cash on hand, checking accounts, certificates of deposit, savings accounts, and "Stocks, Bonds, Other." The word "None" is twice written across this part of the form, in handwriting.
Elsewhere, the form calls for a listing of certain sources of income. In this part of the form, Patterson listed her son, Tony Moreland, as a member of the household who was receiving Social Security income, in the amount of $396 per month.
On September 12, 1985, Patterson had received and negotiated a check in the amount of $15,090.15 from the United States Treasury, which was payable to "Beverly F. Patterson for Tony D. Moreland." Patterson received this check as the result of a successful prosecution of a paternity case establishing the late Tommy Sears to have been the father of Tony Moreland, followed by her having made a claim for child survivor Social Security benefits based upon Tommy Sears' earnings.
Patterson received food stamps as a result of her application.
Patterson was indicted for two counts of theft by deception, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). The second of these counts related to the application for food stamps. The first count related to an application for Aid for Dependent Children benefits, in which Patterson was alleged to have falsified information.
Patterson moved to dismiss both counts of the indictment, but the trial court overruled her motion.
Thereafter, Patterson entered a plea of no contest to the second count of the indictment, in exchange for a dismissal of the first count of the indictment. The trial court found Patterson guilty of the second count, and sentenced her accordingly. From her conviction and sentence on the second count of the indictment, Patterson appeals.
Patterson's sole assignment of error is as follows:
"The trial court erred in overruling defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss the charges against her of theft by deception."
In her motion, Patterson moved to dismiss the charges against her "for the reasons that the actions with which defendant has been accused are not a violation of any law." Although there does not appear to be any express authority in the Criminal Rules for such a motion, the motion would appear to be analogous to a motion in a civil case to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). As we construe the motion, it tested whether the indictment alleged facts constituting a violation of criminal law.
The second count of the indictment against Patterson, of which she was convicted, reads, in its entirety, as follows:
"AND the grand jurors of this County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio, upon their oaths, do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor
...omitted). The issue of the propriety of a trial court's failure to dismiss an indictment pretrial was raised in Ohio v. Patterson, 63 Ohio App.3d 91, 577 N.E.2d 1165 (1989). Observing that a motion to dismiss the charges tests the sufficiency of the indictment and not the quantity or qualit......
-
State v. Michael Daily, 98-LW-0158
... ... Nos. 95CA6082 and 95CA6083, unreported. A ... motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Crim.R. 12 tests the ... sufficiency of the charging document, without regard to the ... quantity or quality of evidence which may eventually be ... produced by the state. State v. Patterson (1989), 63 ... Ohio App.3d 91, 95. As a result, a motion to dismiss a ... criminal charge should be denied when the complaint is valid ... on its face. State v. Edwards (Nov. 12, 1997), ... Lorain App. No. 97CA6660, unreported. If a motion to dismiss ... requires ... ...
-
State v. Towns
...that may be produced at trial." State v. Morrison, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24965, 2010-Ohio-6309, ¶ 17, citing State v. Patterson, 63 Ohio App.3d 91, 95, 577 N.E.2d 1165 (2d Dist.1989). "If the indictment is valid on its face, a motion to dismiss should not be granted." Id., citing State v. Ep......
-
State v. Derek Brown, Todd Ebelein
...as to proximate cause await another day"); State v. Campbell (Sept. 3, 1993), Wood App. No. 92WD102, unreported (quoting and following Patterson, supra.) In case sub judice, appellants requested the trial court to look beyond the face of the indictment. Appellants requested the trial court ......