Garfield Hts. v. Poree

2025 Ohio 1065

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 114308
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Garfield Hts. v. Poree, 2025-Ohio-1065.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF GARFIELD HEIGHTS, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114308 v. :

CHRISTOPHER POREE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 27, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. CRB 2301601

Appearances:

Edward Fadel, City of Garfield Heights Chief Prosecutor, for appellee.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Rick Ferrara, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, P.J.:

Defendant-appellant Christopher Poree challenges his misdemeanor

theft conviction, which was rendered after a bench trial, as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.1 After a thorough review of the facts and pertinent

law, we affirm.

The record demonstrates that Poree and the victim had been in an

intimate relationship, during which Poree lived with the victim at her house. At the

time of the subject incident, Poree and the victim were no longer dating and they

had animosity toward one another. Some of Poree’s belongings remained in the

victim’s garage after the breakup. The victim testified that she attempted to arrange

a time for Poree to retrieve his belongings from her garage but Poree failed to follow

the plan.

The victim’s son testified that on the day of the incident, which was after

the breakup, he was home at his mother’s house — his mother was not home at the

time — and saw Poree come onto the property, go into the garage, and remove items.

According to the son, some of the items belonged to Poree and some belonged to his

mother. For example, he testified that a couple of days before the incident he cut

the grass and there were two lawnmowers in the garage — one belonged to his

mother and one belonged to Poree. After Poree left that day, both lawnmowers were

gone. The son called his mother, who immediately returned home, surveyed what

Poree took, and called the police. The victim admitted that some of what Poree took

was his but testified that he took the following items that belonged to her: an edger,

two snow shovels, an echo weed wacker, a lawn mower, and tools. The victim

1 Poree was also charged with telecommunications harassment. The trial court found him not guilty of the charge. testified that, with the help of her son, she purchased the lawn mower, which was

used, from a site called “OfferUp” for $180, and she purchased the weed wacker

from either Walmart or Home Depot for $226. As of the time of trial, Poree had not

returned the items.

Poree testified. He admitted his criminal history but testified that since

his release from prison in 2019, he was a changed man. However, he did

acknowledge that he had a new conviction for having weapons while under

disability. Poree admitted that he went to the victim’s house and took items from

her garage but maintained that he only took his belongings. Poree maintained that

the victim had mental-health issues that caused her to fabricate that he took some

of her property.

On this testimony, the trial court found Poree guilty of theft, a

misdemeanor of the first degree under R.C. 2913.02. The trial court sentenced him

to a 180-day suspended jail term and placed him on community-control sanctions

for one year. In his sole assignment of error, Poree contends that the conviction was

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

When evaluating a claim that a verdict is against the manifest weight of

the evidence, “we review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving

conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a

manifest miscarriage of justice that we must reverse the conviction and order a new

trial.” State v. Wilks, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). Reversing a conviction based upon the weight of the evidence

should occur “‘only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily

against the conviction.’” Thompkins at id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d

172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

R.C. 2913.02, governing theft, provides in relevant part that “[n]o

person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property . . . shall knowingly obtain or

exert control over . . . the property . . . [w]ithout the consent of the owner or person

authorized to give consent.”

Poree contends that “[w]ithout physical evidence, the trial court

should not have relied on [the victim’s] testimony to meet the City of Garfield

Heights’s burden beyond a reasonable doubt.” He points to alleged inconsistencies

in the victim’s testimony in comparison to her son’s testimony. It is well settled that

“‘a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the

[trier of fact] rejected the defendant’s version of the facts and believed the testimony

presented by the state.’” State v. Jallah, 2015-Ohio-1950, ¶ 71 (8th Dist.), quoting

State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-2959, ¶ 28 (4th Dist.); see also State v. Kouame, 2020-

Ohio-3118, ¶ 53 (8th Dist.); State v. Agnew, 2024-Ohio-874, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). This

is because the trier of fact is free to believe all, some, or none of the evidence

presented by the State or defense at trial. State v. Smith, 2010-Ohio-4006, ¶ 16

(8th Dist.).

This is not the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs against

the conviction. The victim’s son testified that Poree came to his mother’s house, went into the garage, and removed items. He admitted that some of the items he

saw Poree taking were his but some were his mother’s too. When the victim arrived

home, she surveyed the items in her garage and identified her items that were

missing. That the trial court believed the victim and her son is not incredulous.

Poree’s conviction was not against the manifest weight, and Poree’s

sole assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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

Garfield Heights 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.

________________________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR