Cleveland v. Wyley

2024 Ohio 5814

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 113869 & 113870
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Cleveland v. Wyley, 2024-Ohio-5814.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF CLEVELAND, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 113869 and 113870 v. :

ASIA WYLEY, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 12, 2024

Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2023-CRB-009975

Appearances:

Mark Griffin, City of Cleveland Director of Law, Aqueelah A. Jordan, Chief Prosecutor, and Margaret Scott, Assistant City Prosecutor, for appellee.

Asia Wyley, pro se.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

Appellant Asia Wyley, pro se, appeals her conviction for criminal

trespass. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. On December 13, 2023, Wyley was cited with criminal trespass in

violation of Cleveland Cod.Ord. 623.04. Wyley entered a plea of not guilty to the

charge. The case proceeded to a bench trial on February 13, 2024.

Testimony and evidence were provided concerning an incident that

occurred on December 12-13, 2023, at the Hilton Cleveland Downtown. Carlos

Lacey, a manager who oversees safety and security at the hotel, testified that around

11:30 p.m., he saw Wyley in the hotel with two males who were acting suspiciously.

Lacey alerted his security team. The three individuals, who were not guests of the

hotel, went to the roof-top bar. At closing, which was around 12:00 a.m., everyone

was asked to leave. After discovering from hotel footage that the three individuals

had not left, hotel security with the assistance of police attempted to locate the three

individuals to keep the property safe. They were found in a restricted stairwell and

were asked to leave by the police. The two males left of their own accord, but Wyley

did not. Lacey testified that Wyley refused to leave, became aggressive with the

police, and was arrested. Wyley testified in her own defense. She indicated that

after last call at the bar, she went into the stairwell with her two companions to have

a conversation with them. She maintained that when the police came in and told

them they had to leave, that she was confused by what was occurring, that she was

questioning the officers and trying to figure out what was going on, that she was with

two men she did not know, and that she was arrested after she asked to go to the

precinct. Other testimony was provided by the witnesses, which this court has

reviewed. Video evidence also was shown during trial that demonstrated the

officers informed the three individuals they had been told to leave, the two men

stood up and left, and Wyley refused and started an exchange with the officers. The

lower court observed from the video that “it was clear to [the two men] that you

needed to leave, and your answer was, no. Wait a minute. You leave. I’m conversing

with the police officer[s].” The lower court further stated, “[T]he video showed that

you were asked to leave by the officers. At a minimum, based upon the evidence

introduced at trial, I have no reason not to give credibility to Mr. Lacey[.]” Based

upon the evidence that was presented and the video that was shown, the lower court

found Wyley guilty of one count of criminal trespass in violation of Cleveland

Cod.Ord. 623.04, a fourth-degree misdemeanor. The lower court sentenced Wyley

to a fine of one hundred dollars, 30 days in jail suspended, and one year of inactive

probation with conditions of no new cases and no contact with the Hilton Cleveland

Downtown.

Under her sole assignment of error, appellant argues that her

conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence.

When determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient

evidence, “‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Wilks,

2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 156, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph

two of the syllabus. When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court considers “whether the evidence, ‘if believed, would convince the average mind

of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Pountney, 2018-Ohio-

22, ¶ 19, quoting Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus.

Cleveland Cod.Ord. 623.04, Criminal Trespass, provides in part:

(a) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes or hours, when the offender knows he or she is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard.

...

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either[.]

In this case, we find there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that

Wyley knowingly remained on the hotel premises and refused to leave after being

told to leave by hotel staff and the police. The offense of criminal trespass was

complete the moment Wyley refused to leave. See Cleveland v. Dickerson, 2016-

Ohio-806, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.). After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to

the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of criminal trespass proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not

persuaded by Wyley’s arguments, and the assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction

having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the

trial court for execution of sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and WILLIAM A. KLATT, J.,* CONCUR

(*Sitting by assignment: William A. Klatt, J., retired, of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.)