[Cite as State v. Baumle, 2015-Ohio-220.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 11-14-06
v.
ABAGAIL L. BAUMLE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Paulding County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR-13-587
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: January 26, 2015
APPEARANCES:
Timothy C. Holtsberry for Appellant
Joseph R. Burkard for Appellee Case No. 11-14-06
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Abagail L. Baumle (“Baumle”), appeals the June
4, 2014 judgment entry of sentence of the Paulding County Court of Common
Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On November 15, 2013, the Paulding County Grand Jury indicted
Baumle on one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2), a fifth-
degree felony. (Doc. No. 1). The indictment alleged that on September 5, 2013
through September 24, 2013 Baumle purposely deprived the victim, Courtney
Temple (“Temple”), of an item of property listed in R.C. 2913.71, a “credit/debit
card,” or exerted control over that property without Temple’s consent. (Id.).
{¶3} On November 25, 2013, Baumle entered a not-guilty plea at
arraignment. (Doc. No. 11).
{¶4} On February 25, 2014, Baumle waived her right to a trial by jury and a
trial to the court was held on April 10, 2014. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 24). The trial
court found Baumle guilty as to the count in the indictment and ordered a
presentence investigation (“PSI”). (Doc. No. 24); (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 51).
{¶5} On April 22, 2014, Baumle filed a “Motion for Dismissal” under
Crim.R. 29, 47, and 48, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that she
intended to permanently deprive Temple of her debit card. (Doc. No. 25). The
trial court denied Baumle’s motion on April 30, 2014. (Doc. No. 26).
-2- Case No. 11-14-06
{¶6} On June 2, 2014, the trial court sentenced Baumle to four years of
community control. (June 4, 2014 JE, Doc. No. 29). Baumle’s community
control sanctions included: that she will serve 20-days in jail with work-release
privileges; that she may not consume alcohol or controlled substances and enter
any bars, taverns, or establishments that serve alcohol by the single serving; that
she will be subject to random blood, breath, and urine screens; that she will pay
court costs in this case; and that she will maintain employment during her term of
community control. (Id.).
{¶7} Baumle filed her notice of appeal on July 3, 2014. (Doc. No. 31).
Baumle raises three assignments of error for our review. We elect to address
Baumle’s first and second assignments of error together, followed by her third
assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court’s finding of guilt for a violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) for theft of a debit card is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Assignment of Error No. II
The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Criminal Rules 29, 47 and 48.
{¶8} In her first and second assignments of error, Baumle argues that her
conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not supported by
sufficient evidence. In particular, Baumle argues that there is insufficient
-3- Case No. 11-14-06
evidence that she purposely deprived Temple of her debit card because Baumle
replaced it in Temple’s wallet after each time she used it. She also contends that
there is insufficient evidence that Temple did not consent to Baumle’s use of her
debit card.
{¶9} As an initial matter, we note that Baumle argues in her second
assignment of error that the trial court erred in overruling her “motion to dismiss.”
However, Baumle mischaracterizes her motion. Instead, because Baumle’s
motion was made after the presentation of evidence and requested the trial court to
examine the evidence presented and dismiss the indictment since there was
insufficient evidence that Baumle intended to permanently deprive Temple of her
debit card, the motion was framed as, and treated as, a motion for acquittal under
Crim.R. 29.1 See State v. Stout, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-06-12, 2006-Ohio-6089, ¶
11 (“If a motion to dismiss requires examination of evidence beyond the face of
the complaint, it must be presented as a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at
the close of the state’s case.”), citing State v. Varner, 81 Ohio App.3d 85, 86 (9th
Dist.1991). Nevertheless, Baumle’s motion had no application in her bench trial.
See State v. Miller, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-12-52, 2013-Ohio-3194, ¶ 27, fn. 3
(“‘The purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the sufficiency of
the evidence and, where the evidence is insufficient, to take the case from the jury.
1 Although Baumle characterized her motion as a “motion to dismiss,” we note that she stated that her arguments were being made under Crim.R. 29, 47, and 48. (See Doc. No. 25).
-4- Case No. 11-14-06
In the non-jury trial, however, the defendant’s plea of not guilty serves as a motion
for judgment of acquittal, and obviates the necessity of renewing a Crim.R. 29
motion at the close of all the evidence.’”), quoting City of Dayton v. Rogers, 60
Ohio St.2d 162, 163 (1979). Accordingly, we will treat Baumle’s assignment of
error as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Id., citing State v. Tatum, 3d.
Dist. Seneca No. 13-10-8, 2011-Ohio-3005, ¶ 43 and State v. Miley, 114 Ohio
App.3d 738, 742 (4th Dist.1996).
{¶10} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional
amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).
Accordingly, “[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.” Id. “In
deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts
nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier
of fact.” State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571,
2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams, 197 Ohio App.3d 505,
-5- Case No. 11-14-06
2011-Ohio-6267, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). See also State v. Berry, 3d Dist. Defiance No.
4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, ¶ 19 (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy
rather than credibility or weight of the evidence.”), citing State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).
{¶11} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine 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
the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” Thompkins at 387,
quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A reviewing
court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters
relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifest-weight
standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against
the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.”
State v. Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, quoting State v.
Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.
{¶12} The criminal offense of theft is codified in R.C. 2913.02, which
provides, in relevant part: “No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of
-6- Case No. 11-14-06
property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the
property or services * * * [w]ithout the consent of the owner or person authorized
to give consent.” R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).
{¶13} Prior to the start of trial, the parties stipulated that Baumle used
Temple’s debit card several times to receive $1,089.50. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 6).
The parties also stipulated that State’s Exhibits One and Two—photographs of
Baumle using Temple’s debit card and Temple’s bank statement depicting the
withdrawals—should be admitted into evidence without objection. (Id.).
{¶14} At trial, the State called Chief Rodney Miller of the Payne Police
Department (“Chief Miller”) to testify. Chief Miller testified that Temple came to
“the office and reported that someone had used her ATM card at several different
ATM machines that amounted to over $1,000.” (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 10). Based
on Temple’s report, Chief Miller testified that he began his investigation by
contacting the banks that controlled the ATM machines at which the withdrawals
were made and obtained photographs of the person, later identified as Baumle,
who made the withdrawals. (Id. at 11). As a result of his investigation, he asked
Baumle to come to the Payne Police Department for an interview. (Id.). He
testified that Baumle told him that she used Temple’s debit card “at several
different machines to pay expenses” and that she did so without Temple’s
permission. (Id. at 12). Chief Miller identified State’s Exhibit Three as the
-7- Case No. 11-14-06
statement Baumle provided to him in which Baumle also stated that she took
Temple’s debit card without her permission. (Id.); (State’s Ex. 3). Chief Miller
testified that Temple was “[n]ot surprised” that the photographs depicted Baumle
as the person using her debit card. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 11). Baumle did not
cross-examine Chief Miller. (Id. at 13).
{¶15} Next, Temple testified on behalf of the State. She testified that she
and Baumle were friends since the sixth grade and that the two became roommates
in July 2013. (Id. at 15). She testified that she did not give Baumle permission to
use her debit card and did not tell Baumle her PIN number. (Id. at 16-17, 20-21).
According to Temple, Baumle never asked Temple to borrow money from her
during the time that Baumle made the withdrawals using Temple’s debit card. (Id.
at 18).
{¶16} On cross-examination, Temple stated that she did not tell Baumle
that she would loan her money. (Id. at 22). Temple further testified that Baumle
would accompany her when she would withdraw money using her debit card, but
she avowed that she did not share her PIN number with Baumle. (Id. at 23).
Temple also testified that she did not give Baumle her debit card to make
purchases for Temple. (Id.).
{¶17} Thereafter, the State moved to admit State’s Exhibit Three and
rested. (Id. at 24). State’s Exhibit Three was admitted without objection. (Id.).
-8- Case No. 11-14-06
{¶18} The defense called Baumle as a witness. Baumle testified that she
told Temple that she was not going to have enough money to pay her bills and that
she needed Temple “to float [her] some money and [Temple] said okay.” (Id. at
29). Baumle testified that she and Temple did not discuss how much money
Baumle wanted to borrow from Temple or how Baumle was going to borrow
money from Temple. (Id. at 29-30). She testified that she used Temple’s debit
card before, and the following exchange took place:
[The State’s Counsel]: What had you used her debit card for?
[Baumle]: We would go to the store – in Payne, we
would go to the store and we’d get like
stuff for supper that night.
[The State’s Counsel]: The two of you together?
[Baumle]: Yes.
[The State’s Counsel]: When did you ever use her debit card?
[Baumle]: If I was told to go to, like, the gas station
and then get gas for my car.
[The State’s Counsel]: How would you get her debit card then?
[Baumle]: She would give it to me.
[The State’s Counsel]: Okay. Did you [sic] give you the PIN
number?
-9- Case No. 11-14-06
[Baumle]: We knew each other’s PIN numbers.
[The State’s Counsel]: Okay. And how did you know each
other’s PIN numbers?
[Baumle]: Because hers was her birthday and so is
mine.
[The State’s Counsel]: Okay. So it wasn’t hard to figure out.
[Baumle]: No.
(Id. at 30-31).
{¶19} As related to the instances that Baumle took Temple’s debit card at
issue in this case, Baumle testified that she took Temple’s debit card from
Temple’s wallet without Temple’s knowledge or consent. (Id. at 32). She
testified that she thought she had permission to take Temple’s debit card
“[b]ecause [they] had talked about it before” and because Temple agreed to loan
her money. (Id. at 33). Baumle further testified that Temple knew that she was
going to borrow money from her, but Temple did not know that Baumle was going
to borrow money from her by taking her debit card. (Id. at 34). Baumle testified
that she used Temple’s card “[s]ix times maybe, seven to ten” prior to the times at
issue in this case. (Id. at 35-36).
{¶20} On cross-examination, Baumle testified that she accompanied
Temple to the Payne Police Department to report the theft when Temple first
-10- Case No. 11-14-06
discovered the money missing from her savings account. (Id. at 37). However,
although Baumle testified that Temple consented to her taking her debit card
because they “had talked before,” she did not initially confess to Temple because
she “didn’t know how to, like, tell her” and because she “just didn’t have the
money to cover it.” (Id.). Baumle also testified that she did not ask for Temple’s
permission to use her debit card any of the times that she used it. (Id. at 39).
{¶21} On redirect examination, Baumle testified that she told Temple that
she needed money on one of the instances she used her debit card and that Temple
said, “Okay.” (Id. at 41). She testified that she did not tell Temple that she was
going to use her debit card on the other days because she thought that Temple
gave her permission to do so. (Id. at 43).
{¶22} Thereafter, the defense rested and closing arguments were presented.
(Id. at 44-48).
{¶23} We first review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Baumle’s
theft conviction. State v. Velez, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-10, 2014-Ohio-1788, ¶
68, citing State v. Wimmer, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-98-46, 1999 WL 355190, *1
(Mar. 26, 1999). As noted above, Baumle does not contest that she took Temple’s
debit card and made the withdrawals; rather, she argues that the evidence fails to
show that she “deprived” Temple of her debit card as the term is used in the theft
statute and that she took Temple’s debit card without her consent.
-11- Case No. 11-14-06
{¶24} Although Baumle challenges separate elements of her theft
conviction, we address those elements together because the “deprive” element
correlates to the “consent” element of that offense in this case.
{¶25} Based on the evidence presented, the trier of fact could have
reasonably concluded that Baumle purposely deprived Temple of her debit card
without her consent. Though, Baumle avers that, because she did not permanently
deprive Temple of her debit card, she did not commit theft and that there is
insufficient evidence that Temple did not consent to Baumle using Temple’s debit
card. Baumle’s arguments are meritless.
{¶26} “Deprive” means to do any of the following:
(1) Withhold property of another permanently, or for a period that
appropriates a substantial portion of its value or use, or with purpose
to restore it only upon payment of a reward or other consideration;
(2) Dispose of property so as to make it unlikely that the owner
will recover it;
(3) Accept, use, or appropriate money, property, or services with
purpose not to give proper consideration in return for the money,
property, or services, and without reasonable justification or excuse
for not giving proper consideration.
-12- Case No. 11-14-06
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2913.01(C). That Baumle did not intend to permanently
deprive Temple of her debit card is of no consequence. See State v. Breaston, 8
Ohio App.3d 144, 145 (10th Dist.1982) (“It is no longer necessary that defendant
have an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property to be guilty of
theft or of receiving stolen property.”); State v. Bilick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
71238, 1997 WL 358282, *5 (June 26, 1997) (Dyke, J., concurring), citing
Breaston and Committee Comment to House Bill 511, effective January 1, 1974
(“The definition of ‘deprive’ in this section is also broadened to include a
temporary deprivation of property resulting in some substantial loss to the
owner.”). See also State v. Jordan, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26598, 2013-Ohio-4172,
¶ 28 (“Pursuant to R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a defendant need only have ‘purpose’ to
deprive the owner of property; he need not actually permanently withhold or
dispose of the property.”).
{¶27} Baumle admitted that she temporarily deprived Temple of her debit
card, which resulted in a substantial loss to Temple. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 6, 32,
39); (State’s Ex. 3). Because Baumle admittedly used Temple’s debit card without
giving her proper consideration for it, we need only address whether she had a
reasonable justification or excuse for not giving Temple proper consideration for
the debit card—that is, whether Baumle was justified in taking Temple’s debit
-13- Case No. 11-14-06
card to withdraw the money because Temple consented to Baumle using her debit
card.
{¶28} There is sufficient evidence that Baumle did not have a reasonable
justification or excuse for not giving Temple proper consideration for the debit
card because she took it without Temple’s consent. During her case-in-chief,
Baumle admitted that she took Temple’s debit card without her knowledge or
consent. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 32, 39). Specifically, Baumle testified that she took
Temple’s debit card out of her wallet and replaced it after each use and that “[s]he
didn’t know” that Baumle was doing this. (Id. at 32-33). Indeed, although
Baumle maintained that she discussed borrowing money from Temple with her
and that Temple agreed to “float her some money,” Baumle acknowledged that
she did not discuss with Temple how much money she was to borrow from her,
that she would borrow money from her by using her debit card, or how she would
repay her. (Id. at 29-30). Chief Miller testified that Baumle admitted to him that
she took Temple’s debit card without her permission, and that Baumle also
admitted that she took Temple’s debit card without her consent in the written
statement that she provided him. (Id. at 12); (State’s Ex. 3). Temple testified that
she did not give Baumle permission to use her debit card, tell Baumle her PIN
number, or have any discussion with Baumle about her borrowing money from
her. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 16-18, 20-23). Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence
-14- Case No. 11-14-06
that Baumle did not have a reasonable justification or excuse for not giving
Temple proper consideration for the debit card because she took Temple’s debit
card without her consent—that is, there is sufficient evidence that Baumle and
Temple did not have an agreement that Baumle was to borrow money from
Temple by using her debit card.
{¶29} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a
rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Baumle had
the purpose to deprive Temple of her debit card without her consent, and
therefore, committed theft.
{¶30} Having concluded that Baumle’s conviction is based on sufficient
evidence, we next address Baumle’s argument that her conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Velez, 2014-Ohio-1788, at ¶ 76. As we
summarized above, Baumle admitted that she used Temple’s debit card without
her consent. Also, as we summarized above, there is sufficient evidence that
Baumle purposely deprived Temple of her debit card.
{¶31} Consequently, this case ultimately came down to whether the trier of
fact believed Baumle’s story or Temple’s story. Even when applying the
manifest-weight standard of review, an appellate court must allow the trier of fact
appropriate discretion in determining the credibility of the witnesses. DeHass, 10
Ohio St.2d at 231. Such deference is warranted because “‘the trier of fact is in the
-15- Case No. 11-14-06
best position to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice
inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered
testimony.’” State v. Kring, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-610, 2008-Ohio-3290,
¶ 44, quoting State v. Wright, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-470, 2004-Ohio-677,
¶ 11. That being said, after reading the testimony presented at trial, we are
persuaded that Baumle lacked credibility.
{¶32} To begin with, Baumle changed her story while on the witness stand.
Specifically, she testified during cross-examination that Temple did not give her
permission to use her debit card for any of the times, at issue in this case, that she
used it. (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 39). Similarly, Chief Miller testified that Baumle
admitted to him that the times she used Temple’s debit card, she did so without her
permission, and that she also admitted that she took Temple’s debit card without
her permission in the written statement that she provided him. (Id. at 12); (State’s
Ex. 3). However, during redirect examination, Baumle testified that she asked for
Temple’s permission one of the times that she used her debit card and that Temple
replied, “Okay.” (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 41).
{¶33} Likewise, although Baumle testified that she intended to repay
Temple when she used her debit card without her permission, Baumle’s assertions
appeared disingenuous since her offer to repay Temple was made only after
speaking with Chief Miller. Baumle testified that she did not confess to Temple or
-16- Case No. 11-14-06
Chief Miller when she first accompanied Temple to the Payne Police Department
where Temple reported to Chief Miller that there was money missing from her
account because she “didn’t know how to, like, tell her” and she “just didn’t have
the money to cover it.” (Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 37). Nonetheless, Baumle later
testified that she told Temple that she was going to repay her by “borrowing
against [her] car.” (Id. at 40). Although, it is unclear from Baumle’s testimony
when Baumle made this declaration to Temple, the record reflects that she made
this offer to Temple only after being confronted about using Temple’s debit card.
Baumle stated in her written statement that she provided to Chief Miller that she
offered to take a loan out against her car to repay Temple after Temple learned
that it was her using her debit card. (See State’s Ex. 3).
{¶34} Nonetheless, Baumle argues that it was Temple’s testimony that was
“contradictory and at times disingenuous from other facts presented and at times
just lacked common sense.” (Appellant’s Brief at 4). Specifically, Baumle argues
that Temple’s testimony that she was “shocked and surprised” to learn that it was
Baumle that had used her debit card was contradicted by Chief Miller’s testimony
that Temple was “not surprised” to learn that it was Baumle who used her debit
card. Likewise, Baumle argues that Temple was seeking to “exact revenge” on
her because she caused Temple’s boyfriend to break up with her. However,
-17- Case No. 11-14-06
Baumle’s arguments are underwhelming compared to the evidence that she
committed theft.
{¶35} Rather, Temple was consistent with her story. Temple testified that
she never allowed Baumle to use her debit card, that she did not tell Baumle her
PIN number, that she did not discuss with Baumle that Baumle needed to borrow
money from her, and that she did not agree to loan money to Baumle. (Apr. 10,
2014 Tr. at 17-18). When asked if she was motivated to testify against Baumle
because Baumle caused her boyfriend to break up with her, Temple responded, “I
don’t think that has anything to do [sic] why we are here today.” (Id. at 20). In
addition, Temple testified that Baumle asked her to change her story prior to the
start of trial. (Id.).
{¶36} Baumle also suggests that there was a reasonable inference that
Temple gave Baumle at least some sort of consent to use her debit card because
Baumle knew her PIN number. However, there is no evidence that Temple told
Baumle her PIN number. Indeed, Baumle testified that, similar to her own PIN
number being based on her birthday, Temple’s PIN number was based on
Temple’s birthday and that it was not hard for her to figure out. (See id. at 31).
{¶37} After weighing the evidence and evaluating the credibility of the
witnesses, with appropriate deference to the trier of fact’s credibility
determination, we cannot conclude that the trier of fact clearly lost its way and
-18- Case No. 11-14-06
created a manifest injustice. As such, we are not persuaded that Baumle’s theft
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
{¶38} For these reasons, Baumle’s first and second assignments of error are
overruled.
Assignment of Error No. III
The trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty of felony theft when no evidence was presented as to the value of the property stolen.
{¶39} In her third assignment of error, Baumle argues that the debit card at
issue in this case does not meet the definition of a credit card under R.C. 2913.71
or R.C. 2913.01(U). As such, she avers that, because no evidence was offered as
to the debit card’s value, she could not be convicted of a fifth-degree felony.
{¶40} Baumle’s argument is misguided. R.C. 2913.05(B)(2) provides, in
relevant part: “[I]f the property stolen is any of the property listed in section
2913.71 of the Revised Code, a violation of this section is theft, a felony of the
fifth degree.” R.C. 2913.71 provides:
Regardless of the value of the property involved and regardless of
whether the offender previously has been convicted of a theft
offense, a violation of section 2913.02 or 2913.51 of the Revised
Code is a felony of the fifth degree if the property involved is * * *
[a] credit card[.]
-19- Case No. 11-14-06
R.C. 2913.71(A).
{¶41} The statutory definition of a “credit card” includes debit cards. R.C.
2913.01(U) defines “credit card” as including: a card, code, device, or other
means of access to a customer’s account for the purpose of obtaining money,
property, labor, or services on credit, or for initiating an electronic fund transfer at
a point-of-sale terminal, an automated teller machine, or a cash dispensing
machine.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶42} Baumle used Temple’s debit card to initiate an electronic fund
transfer from Temple’s account at an ATM or a cash dispensing machine. (See
Apr. 10, 2014 Tr. at 6, 32); (State’s Exs. 1, 2). Thus, Temple’s debit card falls
within the definition of “credit card” under R.C. 2913.01(U). See State v. Smiley,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92572, 2010-Ohio-656, ¶ 34-35 (concluding that a debit
card is within the definition of “credit card” under R.C. 2913.01(U)); State v.
Patton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25756, 2014-Ohio-2099, ¶ 9, fn. 1 (noting that
the statutory definition “can include a debit card”); State v. Jennings, 11th Dist.
Lake No. 2001-L-141, 2002-Ohio-7266, ¶ 33 (concluding that a money card is
within the definition of “credit card” under R.C. 2913.01(U) because “[m]oney
cards are a ‘means of access to a customer’s account’ for the purpose of ‘initiating
an electronic fund transfer at a point-of-sale terminal, an automated teller machine,
-20- Case No. 11-14-06
or a cash dispensing machine’”). Therefore, because the debit card at issue in this
case is included in the statutory definition of a “credit card” under R.C.
2913.01(U), it is included in the meaning of “credit card” in R.C. 2913.71. As
such, the trial court did not err in convicting Baumle of a fifth-degree felony.
{¶43} Baumle’s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶44} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ROGERS, P.J. and, WILLAMOWSI, J., concur.
/jlr
-21-