[Cite as State v. Ford, 2026-Ohio-348.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115098 v. :
BRUCE FORD, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 5, 2026
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-23-679300-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brandon Piteo, and Carley Berman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Christopher M. Kelley, for appellant.
LISA B. FORBES, P.J.:
Bruce Ford (“Ford”) appeals his convictions for engaging in pattern
of corrupt activity, grand theft, and two counts of fifth-degree felony theft. After
thorough review of the law and the facts, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Before Trial
On March 9, 2023, Ford, Tyrone Brooks (“Brooks”), and Lawrence
Williams (“Williams”) (collectively, “defendants”) were named in a 37-count
indictment that alleged criminal activity spanning approximately four years. Ford
was charged in Count 1 with engaging in pattern of corrupt activity, a felony in the
first degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1). Ford was also charged with three
counts of theft at issue in this appeal.1 Counts 27 and 32 alleged, against Ford and
Brooks, theft, a felony in the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). Count
30 alleged, against Ford, Brooks, and Williams, grand theft, a felony in the fourth
degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). Ford was not named in 27 other counts.
B. Trial Testimony
The case proceeded to a jury trial on March 25, 2025. The State called
nearly 50 witnesses, eliciting extensive testimony. Our summary of the facts is
limited in accordance with the charges against Ford and the issues raised on appeal.
1. Prior Theft Offense
a. Detective Shawn Hevener
Shawn Hevener (“Det. Hevener”) testified that he was a detective for
the police department in Austintown, Ohio. He explained that in another case,
initiated before the Mahoning Court of Common Pleas in 2021, Ford and Brooks
were alleged to have stolen cigarettes from a delivery truck at a gas station
1 Ford was found not guilty of seven other counts of theft. (“Austintown theft”).2 Consequent to those allegations, prior to this trial, Ford and
Brooks both pled guilty to fifth-degree felony theft. Journal entries documenting
those convictions were admitted into evidence in this case.
Det. Hevener obtained surveillance video of the Austintown theft,
which was recorded at the gas station. The video was admitted into evidence in this
case. The video shows a silver Toyota pull into a parking lot alongside a delivery
truck. Two men exit the Toyota, remove multiple boxes from the delivery truck’s
cargo hold, and drive away.
That same day, following a traffic stop, Det. Hevener arrested Brooks
and took photos of the car that he was driving. These photos were admitted into
evidence in this case and show a silver Toyota Avalon with a license plate number
JGJ 4623.
2. Count 27: Theft at a Valero Gas Station on June 1, 2022
a. Darrell Bralley
Darrell Bralley (“Bralley”) testified that he was a truck driver and that
he made a delivery to a Valero gas station in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 1, 2022.
During this delivery, “two guys stole . . . cigarettes off the back of the truck while I
was inside the store.” Bralley later reviewed surveillance videos recorded at the
station, which he recognized when played in court. He identified himself, his truck,
and the station in the videos, which are dated June 1, 2022.
2 The Austintown theft was not among the offenses that were charged in this case. The videos show a delivery truck pull into a gas station parking lot.
Two deliverymen exit the truck and begin unloading its cargo hold. A silver Toyota
with a license plate number JGJ 4623 pulls alongside the truck. Eventually, two
men exit the Toyota. For several minutes, these men walk around the gas station
parking lot, while looking at the truck and talking to one another. Eventually, one
man reenters the Toyota through its driver’s-side door. The other walks quickly
towards the delivery truck, picks up two large boxes from its cargo hold, and runs to
the Toyota, which he enters through its passenger door. The Toyota then drives
away from the gas station.
Bralley had been a truck driver for 30 years and, at the time of the
theft, delivered cigarettes, candy, and other items to this Valero gas station every
week. Bralley knew the value of “some” of the items that he delivered and estimated
that each case of cigarettes cost $3,000. He knew that at least two cases had been
stolen on June 1, 2022, but did not remember exactly how many.
a. Detective Nikolai Przybylski
Nikolai Przybylski (“Det. Przybylski”) testified that he helped
investigate this case as a detective for the Cleveland Division of Police. He
interviewed Bralley and reviewed the surveillance video recorded at the Valero gas
station. Det. Przybylski stated that the Austintown theft, to which Ford and Brooks
had pled guilty before this trial, occurred in a similar manner to the thefts at issue
in this case. 3. Count 30: Theft at a Friendship Food Store on September 27, 2022
a. Mark Studebaker
Mark Studebaker (“Studebaker”) testified that he was a truck driver
and that he made a delivery to a Friendship food store in Norwalk, Ohio, on
September 27, 2022. Afterwards, he realized that cigarettes had been missing from
the delivery.
Studebaker reviewed surveillance videos recorded at the store, which
he recognized when they were played in court. The videos, dated September 27,
2022, show a silver Toyota pull into a parking lot. Three men exit the car and walk
to a location that is off screen. They return carrying three large boxes, which they
load into the car before driving away.
Studebaker did not know the value of a case of cigarettes. He agreed
that he provided the police a list of what had been stolen that valued the missing
cigarettes at $1,277.93. After doing so, he realized that more cigarettes had been
stolen than he first realized, which he told the police. He did not remember the
updated value of the missing cigarettes.
b. Officer James Montana
Officer James Montana (“Ofc. Montana”) testified that he had been a
police officer for the Norwalk Police Department and that, on September 27, 2022,
he responded to a reported theft at a Friendship food store.
Ofc. Montana testified that 114 cartons of cigarettes had been stolen,
the value of which he estimated to be $12,000. He determined this value using a list of missing orders that Studebaker provided him. Ofc. Montana also used a list of
prices that a store clerk gave him.
c. Detective Scott Hamernik
Scott Hamernik (“Det. Hamernik”) testified that he was a detective
for the Norwalk Police Department and that he investigated this theft. He spoke to
law enforcement officials from other counties and learned of Ford, Brooks, and
Williams. He obtained photos from each of their driver’s licenses, which were
admitted into evidence. Det. Hamernik compared these photos to the surveillance
video recorded at the store. Based on this comparison, he opined that Ford, Brooks,
and Williams committed the theft at the Friendship food store.
4. Count 32: Theft at a Marathon Bell Gas Station on October 17, 2022
a. Shawn Gromes
Shawn Gromes testified that he was a truck driver and that he made
a delivery to a Marathon Bell gas station in Massillon, Ohio, on October 17, 2022.
He began to unload his truck, bringing products into the gas station. “When I came
out of the store . . . I [saw] a gentleman in the back of the truck and then a guy to the
left of the ramp . . . and the guy inside of the truck was handing cases of cigarettes
out to him.”
Gromes yelled at the men and ran towards them. Carrying a case of
cigarettes, the two men ran to a “silver Toyota Avalon.” Gromes saw “two other full
cases of cigarettes” in the Avalon’s trunk, “plus the one they were just putting in.”
The men “slammed the trunk and hopped in and took off.” Gromes yelled across the parking lot to a police officer who happened
to already be at the gas station. Gromes told the officer that the two men had stolen
cigarettes from the delivery truck. The officer pursued the Avalon.
Gromes “and the store manager went through all of the cigarettes that
were delivered and then what they were missing . . .[and] got the price for each
carton.” They calculated the value of the stolen cigarettes to be $6,879.10.
According to Gromes, a case of cigarettes contained 30 cartons, and a carton of
cigarettes cost $70-120.
b. Officer Jason Smith
Jason Smith (“Ofc. Smith”) testified that he was a patrolman for the
City of Massillon. He was on duty at the Marathon Bell gas station on October 17,
2022, when he heard Gromes yelling and observed two men loading cigarettes into
the trunk of a silver Toyota Avalon. Ofc. Smith identified Ford and Brooks in the
courtroom as the two men that he had observed.
The men drove away in the Avalon, and Ofc. Smith pursued in his
police car. He pulled the Avalon over and arrested both men, who he learned were
Ford and Brooks. Ofc. Smith recovered from the Avalon “three cardboard boxes
which in grand total are 90 cartons all together.” Body-camera and dash-camera
footage of the arrest was admitted into evidence, which shows cases of cigarettes in
the car. 5. Additional Investigation
a. Detective Matthew Nycz
Matthew Nycz (“Det. Nycz”) testified that he had been a detective for
the Cleveland Division of Police and that he helped investigate this case. Prior to
Ford and Brooks’s arrest, he obtained a search warrant for the Toyota Avalon, which
he executed. The car was not titled to Ford, Brooks, or Williams.
From the Avalon, Det. Nycz recovered three documents with Ford’s
name on them. The documents linked Ford to a Knuth Avenue address, though
Det. Nycz found the car on Milverton Road. Among the documents was a traffic
citation issued to Ford, concerning a Toyota with a license plate number JGJ 4623.
Det. Nycz acknowledged that there were other documents in the car that he did not
collect and that may have been associated with individuals other than Ford.
Also from the Avalon, Det. Nycz recovered a jacket, cell phone, water
bottle, deodorant, and cigarillos. No DNA link was established between these items
and Ford.
b. Detective Linda Castro-Tulevski
Linda Castro-Tulevski (“Det. Castro-Tulevski”) testified that she was
a detective for the Solon police department. She helped investigate this case,
examining three phones (“Phones 1, 2, and 3,” respectively). Phones 1 and 2 were
associated with Brooks, and Phone 3 with Ford. Det. Castro-Tulevski determined
that Phone 1 belonged to Brooks because he identified himself by name in chats and because she found an email address that included his name in the phone’s “user
section.” In the same manner, she determined that Phone 3 belonged to Ford.
Det. Castro-Tulevski analyzed over seven months of data taken from
Phone 3. The only interaction that she identified between Phones 1 and 3 was a
message that concerned meat.3
C. Verdict, Sentencing, and this Appeal
The jury found Ford guilty of engaging in pattern of corrupt activity,
as alleged in Count 1, and of the thefts alleged in Counts 27, 30, and 32.
On April 21, 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing. Regarding his
conviction for engaging in pattern of corrupt activity, the court imposed on Ford a
prison term of three to four and one-half-years, under the Reagan Tokes Law. The
trial court ordered Ford to serve this sentence concurrently to prison terms of twelve
months for each of his three theft convictions, for a total prison term of three to four
and one-half years.
Ford appealed, raising the following assignments of error:
1. Appellant’s conviction of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity was not supported by sufficient evidence.
2. Appellant’s convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3 Several counts in the indictment alleged that meat was among items that Brooks
stole. Ford was not named in these counts. II. Law and Analysis
A. Ford’s Conviction for Engaging in Pattern of Corrupt Activity Was Supported by Sufficient Evidence
In his first assignment of error, Ford asserts that insufficient evidence
supported his conviction for engaging in pattern of corrupt activity. Ford argues
that he and Brooks were not part of an enterprise because he stole only cigarettes,
while Brooks stole other items. Ford further notes that Brooks was alleged to have
committed thefts without Ford.
“A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the
evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law.” State v.
Parker, 2022-Ohio-1237, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d
380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry in a sufficiency challenge 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 existed beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus. When making a sufficiency determination, an appellate court does not
review whether the prosecution’s evidence is to be believed but whether, if believed,
the evidence admitted at trial supports the conviction. State v. Starks, 2009-Ohio-
3375, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 386.
R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) establishes the elements of engaging in pattern of
corrupt activity, stating that “[n]o person employed by, or associated with, any
enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the
enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity . . . .” To prove a violation of the statute, the State must show that: “(1) the defendant committed two or more
predicate offenses, (2) the defendant was ‘employed by, or associated with’ an
‘enterprise,’ and (3) the defendant conducted or participated in the enterprise
‘through a pattern of corrupt activity.’” State v. Sultaana, 2016-Ohio-199, ¶ 17 (8th
Dist.), citing State. v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, ¶ 13.
Predicate offenses for engaging in pattern of corrupt activity are listed
in R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(c). These offenses include “[a]ny violation of section . . .
2913.02 . . . of the Revised Code,” which is Ohio’s theft statute. Notably, though, the
conduct required to convict a defendant for engaging in pattern of corrupt activity
is independent of the conduct required to convict him for the predicate acts.
Sultaana at ¶ 17, citing Miranda at ¶ 13. R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) seeks to criminalize the
pattern of criminal activity, not the underlying conduct. (Emphasis added.) Id.,
citing id.
Regarding the “pattern” element of this offense, R.C. 2923.31(E)
defines “[p]attern of corrupt activity” to mean “two or more incidents of corrupt
activity, whether or not there has been a prior conviction, that are related to the
affairs of the same enterprise, are not isolated, and are not so closely related to each
other and connected in time and place that they constitute a single event.” The Ohio
Supreme Court has also stated that a pattern must include “continuous activity.”
Miranda at ¶ 13.
Concerning the “enterprise” element of this offense, the Ohio
Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he existence of an enterprise . . . can be established without proving that the enterprise is a structure separate and distinct from a
pattern of corrupt activity.” State v. Beverly, 2015-Ohio-219, ¶ 13. This is because
“[n]othing in R.C. Chapter 2923 implies or explicitly states that an enterprise and a
pattern of corrupt activity must be proved with separate evidence.” Id. at ¶ 8.
In Beverly, the Court also noted that “the existence of an enterprise is
more difficult to establish” where it is an association-in-fact, or a group of persons
functioning with a common purpose, as opposed to, for example, an illicit corporate
entity. Id. at ¶ 9. The Ohio Supreme Court has found an association-in-fact
enterprise existed based on “the following features: ‘a purpose, relationships among
those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these
associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose.’” State v. Dent, 2020-Ohio-6670,
¶ 19, quoting Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009).
First, we find that Ford was convicted of at least two predicate
offenses — specifically, three counts of theft — as required for a conviction of
engaging in pattern of criminal activity. Discussed later in this opinion, we do not
find Ford’s three theft convictions to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We also find that the State introduced sufficient evidence that Ford’s
conduct amounted to a pattern of corrupt activity, under R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(c). Ford
does not dispute that he stole cigarettes, contesting only the value of the stolen
cigarettes. Video evidence related to all three counts captured men, later identified
by multiple witnesses as defendants, driving a silver Toyota away from retail
locations with boxes of cigarettes. As to Count 32, Ofc. Smith arrested Ford and Brooks after following them from the scene, having watched them load boxes of
cigarettes into the Avalon.
The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that these thefts were
not so closely related and connected in time and place as to constitute a single event.
The thefts occurred at different stores in Cleveland, Norwalk, and Massillon, Ohio,
in June, September, and October of 2022, respectively. Nonetheless, these thefts
were not isolated incidents and demonstrate continuous activity. In all three
instances, over a period of less than five months, at least Ford and Brooks drove
together to a store and stole cases of cigarettes from the cargo hold of a truck.
We also find that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that
Ford and Brooks effectuated each theft as part of an enterprise, shown here, as in
Dent, by purpose, relationships, and longevity. The thefts shared a common
purpose — to steal cigarettes. We acknowledge that Brooks was alleged to have
stolen other items, including meat, without Ford. However, we find no evidence that
Brooks stole anything other than cigarettes during the three thefts at issue here, nor
did the State allege that he did so. To the extent that Brooks stole other items
without Ford, we do not find that doing so affected the purpose behind the actions
that he undertook with Ford.
The record also shows a relationship between Ford and Brooks. The
men traveled to and/or from each theft together in the same vehicle. In surveillance
video, they walked together and appear to speak to one another. Further, we find
that under these circumstances, the enterprise existed for sufficient time to pursue its purpose — again, Ford and Brooks stole cigarettes three times in less than five
months.
For these reasons, we find that Ford’s conviction for engaging in
pattern of corrupt activity was supported by sufficient evidence. Accordingly,
assignment of error No. 1 is overruled.
B. Ford’s Convictions Were Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence
In his second assignment of error, Ford asserts that his convictions
were against the manifest weight of the evidence. A manifest-weight-of-the-
evidence challenge “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief,” i.e., “whose
evidence is more persuasive — the state’s or the defendant’s?” State v. Wilson,
2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25, citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386-387. When
considering an appellant’s claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of
the evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court recently explained that “[the] court looks at
the entire record and ‘“weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers
the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of
justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.”’” State v.
Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804, ¶ 30, quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin,
20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).
At trial, the jury is in the “best position to view the witnesses and
observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections that are critical observations
in determining the credibility of a witness and his or her testimony.” State v. Sheline, 2019-Ohio-528, ¶ 100 (8th Dist.). Reversal on manifest-weight grounds is
reserved for the “‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction.’” Thompkins at 387, quoting Martin at 175.
1. Engaging in Pattern of Corrupt Activity
Regarding his engaging-in-pattern-of-corrupt-activity conviction,
Ford raises arguments regarding the silver Toyota Avalon and his phone records.
Ford argues that the evidence linking him to the Toyota Avalon “was suspect.” He
points out that the car was not titled to him, contained documents that did not name
him, and was searched at an address with which he was not associated. Nonetheless,
surveillance video showed that Ford arrived at and departed from each theft in a
silver Toyota. Further, in surveillance video of the theft at the Valero gas station, a
license plate with the number JGJ 4623 is affixed to the car. Det. Nycz testified that
this license plate number was also associated with the traffic citation that had been
issued to Ford and that was found in the Toyota. That same license plate number
was also visible in photographs that Det. Hevener took while arresting Brooks for
the Austintown theft, to which Ford pled guilty before this trial. Ford was also
traveling in a silver Toyota Avalon when Ofc. Smith arrested him on October 17,
2022.
Next, Ford argues that, had he and Brooks been part of an enterprise,
their phone records would show more interaction between them. Ford points out
that the State identified only one conversation between the phones it associated with
Ford and Brooks. We are not persuaded by this argument. Nothing in the record precludes a finding that Ford and Brooks communicated by means other than the
phones that Det. Castro-Tulevski analyzed. In fact, surveillance videos show the
men appearing to speak face-to-face during at least one of the thefts at issue.
Further, whether by car or on foot, the men travel side-by-side in video related to all
three thefts, each of which occurred in a manner similar to the other thefts.
Given the foregoing, we do not find that this is an exceptional case in
which the evidence weighs heavily against conviction. Ford’s conviction for
engaging in pattern of corrupt activity was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
2. Theft
Ford also asserts that the manifest weight of the evidence does not
support his convictions for theft. Regarding each theft conviction, Ford argues that
the State failed to present credible evidence as to the value of the stolen cigarettes.
According to Ford, the State failed to demonstrate that the witnesses who estimated
the value of the cigarettes were qualified to do so.
Establishing the elements of theft, R.C. 2913.02 prohibits a person,
“with purpose to deprive the owner of property,” from “knowingly obtain[ing] or
exert[ing] control over” the property,” in several ways, including “without consent
of the owner or person authorized to give consent . . . .” R.C. 2913.02(A), (A)(1).
Thefts are classified according to the value of the property that was
stolen. Under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), theft of property valued at “one thousand dollars
or more” but “less than seven thousand five hundred dollars” is a fifth-degree felony. Theft of property valued at “seven thousand five hundred dollars or more” but “less
than one hundred fifty thousand dollars” is grand theft, a fourth-degree felony.
R.C. 2913.02(A)(2). “Pursuant to R.C. 2913.61(D), [these] amount[s] may be set by
‘the[ir] fair market value.’” State v. Klepatzki, 2009-Ohio-3288, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.),
quoting State v. Collins, 2006-Ohio-4898 (8th Dist.).
We do not find that the manifest weight of the evidence was against
Ford’s theft convictions. In support of each theft allegation, the State called at least
one witness who testified that the stolen cigarettes’ values met or exceeded the
amount alleged. Ford has identified no substantial inconsistencies between the
witness’s estimates of the per-case or per-carton value of cigarettes. Ford
introduced no evidence in response to the State’s evidence as to the value of
cigarettes.
Contrary to Ford’s assertions, the State’s witnesses explained their
knowledge of the value of cigarettes and how they determined the value of what had
been stolen. Regarding Count 27, Bralley testified that he had been a truck driver
for more than 30 years and delivered to the Valero gas station every week. He knew
the value of at least some of the items that he delivered, including cigarettes, which
he testified cost $3,000 per case. On this basis, he estimated the value of the two
cases of cigarettes he discovered were missing from his truck to be $6,000.
Concerning Count 30, Ofc. Montana testified that he received a list of
missing orders from Studebaker and associated prices from a store clerk. From this information, Ofc. Montana estimated the value of the stolen cigarettes to be
$12,000.
As to Count 32, Gromes testified that he “and the store manager went
through all of the cigarettes that were delivered and then what they were missing . . .
[and] got the price for each carton.” From this information, they calculated the value
of the stolen cigarettes to be $6,879.10. This is consistent with the roughly $6,300
minimum value implied by Ofc. Montana’s testimony that he recovered 90 cartons
of cigarettes from the Avalon, each of which, according to Gromes, cost at least $70.
Further, concerning each theft, the estimated value of the stolen
cigarettes significantly exceeded the amount required to convict Ford for the alleged
offense. Regarding both Counts 27 and 32, the State’s witnesses estimated the value
of the stolen cigarettes to be in the $6,000 range — at least $5,000 greater than the
$1,000 threshold that R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) provides for conviction of fifth-degree
felony theft. As to Count 30, Ofc. Montana estimated the value of the stolen
cigarettes to be $12,000, which exceeds by more than $4,000 the minimum value
of $7,500 required for a fourth-degree felony grand theft conviction under
R.C. 2913.02(A)(2).
Given the foregoing, we do not find that this is an exceptional case in
which the evidence weighed heavily against conviction nor that any of Ford’s three
theft convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, assignment of error No. 2 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
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
convictions 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.
LISA B. FORBES, PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR