[Cite as Sate v. Caldwell, 2018-Ohio-2593.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-17-1054
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201602723
v.
Jason Caldwell DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 29, 2018
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal brought by appellant from the judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas. In this case, appellant was indicted on September 20,
2016, on a singular count. The grand jury charged appellant with a violation of R.C.
2911.01(A)(1) and (C), aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, in addition to a specification that the offender displayed, brandished, indicated possession or used a
firearm, pursuant to R.C. 2941.145.
{¶ 2} On February 6, 2017, the case proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty.
{¶ 3} On February 28, 2017, appellant was sentenced to four years for the robbery
count, in addition to a mandatory and consecutive three years of incarceration for the gun
specification for a total term of imprisonment of seven years. Appellant was also ordered
to pay all costs and further ordered to pay restitution to the victim, a carryout store, in the
amount of $1,615.
{¶ 4} Appellant sets forth three assignments of error:
I. Appellant’s convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence
and are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
II. The trial court erred in imposing the costs of confinement.
III. The trial court erred in imposing restitution.
Background
{¶ 5} The following facts were adduced at trial. On September 10, 2016, a
cashier, while working at the Stop & Go Carryout located at 1801 Arlington in Toledo,
Lucas County, Ohio, witnessed two men enter the store at approximately 8:00 p.m. Each
had black ski masks over their heads with holes uncovering their eyes and their mouths.
After initially reporting to the police that both men were African-American, he realized
after watching the surveillance video that one was a caucasian. The caucasian brandished
2. a gun in the face of the cashier and indicated that if he did not “hurry it up that I was
going to be shot in the face, something around those words.”
{¶ 6} The cashier believed that approximately $800 was taken. The two men fled
out the door.
{¶ 7} Toledo police received a report of a robbery in progress at the Stop & Go
carryout on Arlington and arrived at the scene at approximately 8:15 p.m. The police
immediately secured the location preventing anyone from entering the premises.
Detectives were immediately summoned and arrived shortly thereafter. The store has a
video surveillance system and the video was played for the detectives. Detective Cousino
noticed that a still frame from the video clearly showed that one of the perpetrators had
placed his right hand on a section of plexiglass on the counter. The video also showed a
gun in the left hand of the person.
{¶ 8} The detective was able to lift two fingerprint samples form that plexiglass
and enter those samples into the national Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS) for comparison. After receiving a list of possible candidates with known
fingerprints, an analysis was undertaken. A match was made with Jason Caldwell’s
known right little fingerprint with the fingerprint lifted from the plexiglass at the scene of
the robbery.
{¶ 9} Based upon this fingerprint match, appellant was arrested at his home. He
had $597 in cash in small bills in his possession at the time of his arrest.
3. {¶ 10} The jury viewed the video evidence and heard testimony from the carryout
cashier, the Toledo police officers at the scene as well as the investigating detectives.
The arresting officer also testified as well as appellant’s girlfriend.
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 11} Appellant’s first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence as well as the manifest weight of the evidence. In reviewing a challenge to the
sufficiency of evidence, the 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. Smith, 80
Ohio St.3d 89, 113, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). In making that determination, appellate
courts will not weigh evidence or assess credibility of the witnesses. State v. Walker, 55
Ohio St.2d 208, 212, 378 N.E.2d 1049 (1978).
{¶ 12} R.C. 2911.01 states:
(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as
defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately
after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:
(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under
the offender’s control and either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate
that the offender possesses it, or use it;
4. (2) Have a dangerous ordnance on or about the offender’s person or
under the offender’s control;
(3) Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another.
(B) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly remove
or attempt to remove a deadly weapon from the person of a law
enforcement officer, or shall knowingly deprive or attempt to deprive a law
enforcement officer of a deadly weapon, when both of the following apply:
(1) The law enforcement officer, at the time of the removal,
attempted removal, deprivation, or attempted deprivation, is acting within
the course and scope of the officer’s duties;
(2) The offender knows or has reasonable cause to know that the law
enforcement officer is a law enforcement officer.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated robbery, a
felony of the first degree.
(D) As used in this section:
(1) “Deadly weapon” and “dangerous ordnance” have the same
meanings as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Law enforcement officer” has the same meaning as in section
2901.01 of the Revised Code and also includes employees of the
department of rehabilitation and correction who are authorized to carry
weapons within the course and scope of their duties.
5. {¶ 13} In the case now before this court, appellant argues that the evidence
presented against him consists mainly of fingerprints. He further argues that the state
could not establish that the fingerprint was left at the scene at the time of the robbery.
{¶ 14} The video shows a perpetrator clearly placing his hand on the plexiglass.
The testimony of the responding officer was that he arrived within minutes of the call
being made to 911. He then secured the scene preventing others from entering. He
called the detectives who then arrived while he remained. Detectives watched the video
and fingerprints were lifted from the plexiglass. Given this evidence, we find that there
was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to conclude that the fingerprints lifted from
the plexiglass belonged to appellant and that they were impressed at the time of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Sate v. Caldwell, 2018-Ohio-2593.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-17-1054
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201602723
v.
Jason Caldwell DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 29, 2018
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal brought by appellant from the judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas. In this case, appellant was indicted on September 20,
2016, on a singular count. The grand jury charged appellant with a violation of R.C.
2911.01(A)(1) and (C), aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, in addition to a specification that the offender displayed, brandished, indicated possession or used a
firearm, pursuant to R.C. 2941.145.
{¶ 2} On February 6, 2017, the case proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty.
{¶ 3} On February 28, 2017, appellant was sentenced to four years for the robbery
count, in addition to a mandatory and consecutive three years of incarceration for the gun
specification for a total term of imprisonment of seven years. Appellant was also ordered
to pay all costs and further ordered to pay restitution to the victim, a carryout store, in the
amount of $1,615.
{¶ 4} Appellant sets forth three assignments of error:
I. Appellant’s convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence
and are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
II. The trial court erred in imposing the costs of confinement.
III. The trial court erred in imposing restitution.
Background
{¶ 5} The following facts were adduced at trial. On September 10, 2016, a
cashier, while working at the Stop & Go Carryout located at 1801 Arlington in Toledo,
Lucas County, Ohio, witnessed two men enter the store at approximately 8:00 p.m. Each
had black ski masks over their heads with holes uncovering their eyes and their mouths.
After initially reporting to the police that both men were African-American, he realized
after watching the surveillance video that one was a caucasian. The caucasian brandished
2. a gun in the face of the cashier and indicated that if he did not “hurry it up that I was
going to be shot in the face, something around those words.”
{¶ 6} The cashier believed that approximately $800 was taken. The two men fled
out the door.
{¶ 7} Toledo police received a report of a robbery in progress at the Stop & Go
carryout on Arlington and arrived at the scene at approximately 8:15 p.m. The police
immediately secured the location preventing anyone from entering the premises.
Detectives were immediately summoned and arrived shortly thereafter. The store has a
video surveillance system and the video was played for the detectives. Detective Cousino
noticed that a still frame from the video clearly showed that one of the perpetrators had
placed his right hand on a section of plexiglass on the counter. The video also showed a
gun in the left hand of the person.
{¶ 8} The detective was able to lift two fingerprint samples form that plexiglass
and enter those samples into the national Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS) for comparison. After receiving a list of possible candidates with known
fingerprints, an analysis was undertaken. A match was made with Jason Caldwell’s
known right little fingerprint with the fingerprint lifted from the plexiglass at the scene of
the robbery.
{¶ 9} Based upon this fingerprint match, appellant was arrested at his home. He
had $597 in cash in small bills in his possession at the time of his arrest.
3. {¶ 10} The jury viewed the video evidence and heard testimony from the carryout
cashier, the Toledo police officers at the scene as well as the investigating detectives.
The arresting officer also testified as well as appellant’s girlfriend.
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 11} Appellant’s first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence as well as the manifest weight of the evidence. In reviewing a challenge to the
sufficiency of evidence, the 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. Smith, 80
Ohio St.3d 89, 113, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). In making that determination, appellate
courts will not weigh evidence or assess credibility of the witnesses. State v. Walker, 55
Ohio St.2d 208, 212, 378 N.E.2d 1049 (1978).
{¶ 12} R.C. 2911.01 states:
(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as
defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately
after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:
(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under
the offender’s control and either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate
that the offender possesses it, or use it;
4. (2) Have a dangerous ordnance on or about the offender’s person or
under the offender’s control;
(3) Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another.
(B) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly remove
or attempt to remove a deadly weapon from the person of a law
enforcement officer, or shall knowingly deprive or attempt to deprive a law
enforcement officer of a deadly weapon, when both of the following apply:
(1) The law enforcement officer, at the time of the removal,
attempted removal, deprivation, or attempted deprivation, is acting within
the course and scope of the officer’s duties;
(2) The offender knows or has reasonable cause to know that the law
enforcement officer is a law enforcement officer.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated robbery, a
felony of the first degree.
(D) As used in this section:
(1) “Deadly weapon” and “dangerous ordnance” have the same
meanings as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Law enforcement officer” has the same meaning as in section
2901.01 of the Revised Code and also includes employees of the
department of rehabilitation and correction who are authorized to carry
weapons within the course and scope of their duties.
5. {¶ 13} In the case now before this court, appellant argues that the evidence
presented against him consists mainly of fingerprints. He further argues that the state
could not establish that the fingerprint was left at the scene at the time of the robbery.
{¶ 14} The video shows a perpetrator clearly placing his hand on the plexiglass.
The testimony of the responding officer was that he arrived within minutes of the call
being made to 911. He then secured the scene preventing others from entering. He
called the detectives who then arrived while he remained. Detectives watched the video
and fingerprints were lifted from the plexiglass. Given this evidence, we find that there
was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to conclude that the fingerprints lifted from
the plexiglass belonged to appellant and that they were impressed at the time of the
commission of the crime. A rational trier-of-fact could have found the essential elements
of aggravated robbery while brandishing a firearm to be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.
{¶ 15} Appellant also claims that the finding of guilty by the jury was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. In a manifest weight challenge, we must determine
whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the conviction. Eastley v.
Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 12. This court sits as
if the “thirteenth juror” and must review the record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn from it, consider the witnesses’ credibility and decide, in
resolving any conflicts in the evidence, whether the trier-of-fact clearly lost its way and
created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a
6. new trial ordered. See State v. Leech, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1156, 2015-Ohio-76,
¶ 32, citing State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{¶ 16} The thrust of appellant’s argument here is that appellant had a tattoo
between his thumb and index finger that could not be seen on the videotape. However,
appellant acknowledges that there was testimony that, when holding a handgun, the
“loop” of the gun would obscure and cover appellant’s tattoo. The videotape and
testimony of the witnesses provide competent, credible evidence appellant committed
aggravated robbery with a specification that he brandished a firearm during the
commission of this offense. Accordingly, this assigned error is found not well-taken.
{¶ 17} Appellant’s second assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in
the imposition of costs of confinement as a financial penalty. Specifically, appellant
argues that the trial court erred when it failed to specify the actual costs of confinement at
the time of sentencing.
{¶ 18} At the outset, we note that appellant failed to seek a waiver of costs at
sentencing. Therefore, although the issue is waived and the matter of costs are
considered res judicata, appellant cites to our case of State v. Warnka, 6th Dist. Lucas No.
L-15-1108, 2016-Ohio-7423. In Warnka, we remanded to the trial court because the
court imposed the costs of confinement without specifying the actual costs of
confinement and the amount Warnka was able to pay at the time of sentencing.
7. {¶ 19} We have more thoughtfully reviewed our holding in Warnka and have
concluded that it is in conflict with our earlier holding in State v. Anderson, 6th Dist.
Lucas Nos. L-01-1239, L-01-1248, 2004-Ohio-1188.
{¶ 20} In Anderson, we held that “while R.C. 2929.18(A)(4) provides the trial
court with the authority to order the reimbursement by the offender of costs for sanctions
incurred by the government, it does not require the trial court to specify the amount of
those costs at sentencing.” Id. at ¶ 45.
{¶ 21} Therefore, we now explicitly overrule Warnka with respect to our holding
on the issue requiring a trial court to specify actual costs at the time of sentencing and
reaffirm our holding in State v. Anderson, supra.
{¶ 22} As we held in Anderson, the trial court is not required to state the actual
costs of confinement at sentencing. Therefore, this assignment of error is found not well-
taken.
{¶ 23} Appellant’s third assignment of error claims error in the imposition of
restitution.
{¶ 24} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)states:
(1) Restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender’s crime
or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based on the victim’s economic
loss. If the court imposes restitution, the court shall order that the
restitution be made to the victim in open court, to the adult probation
department that serves the county on behalf of the victim, to the clerk of
8. courts, or to another agency designated by the court. If the court imposes
restitution, at sentencing, the court shall determine the amount of restitution
to be made by the offender. If the court imposes restitution, the court may
base the amount of restitution it orders on an amount recommended by the
victim, the offender, a presentence investigation report, estimates or
receipts indicating the cost of repairing or replacing property, and other
information, provided that the amount the court orders as restitution shall
not exceed the amount of the economic loss suffered by the victim as a
direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense. If the court
decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold a hearing on restitution if
the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount. All restitution
payments shall be credited against any recovery of economic loss in a civil
action brought by the victim or any survivor of the victim against the
offender.
{¶ 25} Our review of the record establishes that the presentence report provides
ample evidence of the amount of restitution that is owed to the carryout. We note that
when the trial court imposed the restitution at the sentencing hearing, appellant raised no
objection. Therefore, the objection must be considered to have been waived except for
plain error. State v. Peck, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-12-046, 2013-Ohio-4835, ¶ 21.
Only when an award of restitution is not supported by credible, competent evidence from
which the court can discern the amount of restitution will we find plain error. In this
9. instance, we have found competent, credible evidence in the record from which the trial
court could have made such a determination. This assignment of error is found not well-
Conclusion
{¶ 26} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24(A).
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
10.