[Cite as State v. Clarke, 2013-Ohio-5857.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 13-CA-51 JERMAINE A. CLARKE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Municipal Court, Case No. 13 CRB 00564
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 26, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
J. MICHAEL KING ROBERT E. CALESARIC Assistant Law Director 35 South Park Place, Suite 150 City of Newark Newark, Ohio 43055 40 West Main Street Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jermaine A. Clarke appeals his conviction entered by
the Licking County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} At all times relevant herein, Appellant and K.C. had been involved in a
dating relationship and recently ended their relationship. K.C. lived with her daughter in
Section 8 housing.
{¶3} On March 23, 2013, K.C. was awakened in the middle of the night to
someone tossing mulch against her bedroom window. She went to the first floor, and
found Appellant had come to see her. She informed Appellant she was tired, and he
should come back the next day. Appellant did not leave, and asked why he was not
being invited inside. K.C. did not take the chain off the door, and refused to allow
Appellant inside, repeating he should return the next day. Appellant put his hand and
foot in the door frame, until K.C. said she would allow him inside. Upon removing his
hand and foot, K.C. shut the door and refused to allow Appellant inside the residence.
{¶4} Appellant left the premises. However, K.C. soon heard knocking at the
door and learned Appellant had returned.
{¶5} During the entire incident, Appellant was told to leave at least five times,
and returned two times. K.C. then called the police on her cell phone.
{¶6} As a result, Appellant was charged with criminal trespass, in violation of
Pataskala City Ordinance 541.05, which is identical to R.C. 2911.21.
{¶7} Subsequent to the criminal complaint, K.C. and Appellant discussed K.C.
dropping the charges. K.C. filed a statement with the Pataskala City Law Director, Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 3
stating she never asked Appellant to leave. However, K.C. then testified at trial the
statement was false and she had asked Appellant to leave on five occasions during the
incident.
{¶8} Following a trial to the court, Appellant was found guilty of the charge of
criminal trespass and fined $100, plus court costs.
{¶9} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REACHED A VERDICT OF
GUILTY THAT DEFENDANT DID, WITHOUT PRIVILEGE TO DO SO, KNOWINGLY
ENTERED [SIC] OR REMAINED [SIC] ON THE LAND OR PREMISES OF MS.
COWELL.”
{¶11} Appellant maintains his conviction for criminal trespass is against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶12} In State v. Jenks (1981), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, the Ohio
Supreme Court set forth the standard of review when a claim of insufficiency of the
evidence is made. The Ohio Supreme Court held: “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. 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. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶13} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 4
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 judgment
must be reversed. The discretionary power to grant a new hearing should be exercised
only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
judgment.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997–Ohio–52, 678 N .E.2d
541, citing State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717. Because
the trier of fact is in a better position to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh
their credibility, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are
primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d
212, syllabus 1.
{¶14} Appellant was convicted of criminal trespass in violation of Pataskala City
Ordinance 541.05, which reads:
{¶15} "(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
{¶16} "(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
{¶17} "(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 the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that
regard;
{¶18} "(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to
which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication
to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably
calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other
enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access; Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 5
{¶19} "(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to
leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being
notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either."
{¶20} Appellant maintains the State failed to prove he did not have privilege to
enter or remain on the premises. However, we find the record contains sufficient,
competent evidence Appellant did not live at the residence, did not have a key to the
residence, was not invited inside or asked to remain. The record establishes Appellant
remained on the premises and returned thereto having been told at least five times to
leave, despite K.C.’s statement recanting the same. It was up to the trier-of-fact to
determine which version of K.C.’s statements to believe.
{¶21} Accordingly, we do not find the trier of fact erred in finding all of the
elements of the charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court did not
lose its way in finding Appellant guilty of criminal trespass.
{¶22} The first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶23} Appellant's conviction in the Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur ___________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Clarke, 2013-Ohio-5857.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 13-CA-51 JERMAINE A. CLARKE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Municipal Court, Case No. 13 CRB 00564
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 26, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
J. MICHAEL KING ROBERT E. CALESARIC Assistant Law Director 35 South Park Place, Suite 150 City of Newark Newark, Ohio 43055 40 West Main Street Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jermaine A. Clarke appeals his conviction entered by
the Licking County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} At all times relevant herein, Appellant and K.C. had been involved in a
dating relationship and recently ended their relationship. K.C. lived with her daughter in
Section 8 housing.
{¶3} On March 23, 2013, K.C. was awakened in the middle of the night to
someone tossing mulch against her bedroom window. She went to the first floor, and
found Appellant had come to see her. She informed Appellant she was tired, and he
should come back the next day. Appellant did not leave, and asked why he was not
being invited inside. K.C. did not take the chain off the door, and refused to allow
Appellant inside, repeating he should return the next day. Appellant put his hand and
foot in the door frame, until K.C. said she would allow him inside. Upon removing his
hand and foot, K.C. shut the door and refused to allow Appellant inside the residence.
{¶4} Appellant left the premises. However, K.C. soon heard knocking at the
door and learned Appellant had returned.
{¶5} During the entire incident, Appellant was told to leave at least five times,
and returned two times. K.C. then called the police on her cell phone.
{¶6} As a result, Appellant was charged with criminal trespass, in violation of
Pataskala City Ordinance 541.05, which is identical to R.C. 2911.21.
{¶7} Subsequent to the criminal complaint, K.C. and Appellant discussed K.C.
dropping the charges. K.C. filed a statement with the Pataskala City Law Director, Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 3
stating she never asked Appellant to leave. However, K.C. then testified at trial the
statement was false and she had asked Appellant to leave on five occasions during the
incident.
{¶8} Following a trial to the court, Appellant was found guilty of the charge of
criminal trespass and fined $100, plus court costs.
{¶9} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REACHED A VERDICT OF
GUILTY THAT DEFENDANT DID, WITHOUT PRIVILEGE TO DO SO, KNOWINGLY
ENTERED [SIC] OR REMAINED [SIC] ON THE LAND OR PREMISES OF MS.
COWELL.”
{¶11} Appellant maintains his conviction for criminal trespass is against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶12} In State v. Jenks (1981), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, the Ohio
Supreme Court set forth the standard of review when a claim of insufficiency of the
evidence is made. The Ohio Supreme Court held: “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. 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. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶13} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 4
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 judgment
must be reversed. The discretionary power to grant a new hearing should be exercised
only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
judgment.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997–Ohio–52, 678 N .E.2d
541, citing State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717. Because
the trier of fact is in a better position to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh
their credibility, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are
primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d
212, syllabus 1.
{¶14} Appellant was convicted of criminal trespass in violation of Pataskala City
Ordinance 541.05, which reads:
{¶15} "(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
{¶16} "(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
{¶17} "(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 the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that
regard;
{¶18} "(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to
which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication
to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably
calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other
enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access; Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 5
{¶19} "(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to
leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being
notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either."
{¶20} Appellant maintains the State failed to prove he did not have privilege to
enter or remain on the premises. However, we find the record contains sufficient,
competent evidence Appellant did not live at the residence, did not have a key to the
residence, was not invited inside or asked to remain. The record establishes Appellant
remained on the premises and returned thereto having been told at least five times to
leave, despite K.C.’s statement recanting the same. It was up to the trier-of-fact to
determine which version of K.C.’s statements to believe.
{¶21} Accordingly, we do not find the trier of fact erred in finding all of the
elements of the charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court did not
lose its way in finding Appellant guilty of criminal trespass.
{¶22} The first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶23} Appellant's conviction in the Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur ___________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
___________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-51 6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JERMAINE A. CLARKE : : Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 13-CA-51
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant's conviction in
the Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
___________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY