State v. Lee-Robinson

2025 Ohio 4951

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 114783
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lee-Robinson, 2025-Ohio-4951.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114783 v. :

TRESHAUN LEE-ROBINSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 30, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-24-694746-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew W. Moretto, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Charles Ruiz-Bueno Co., L.P.A., and J. Charles Ruiz- Bueno, for appellant. KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

Defendant-appellant Treshaun Lee Robinson (“Robinson”) brings

this appeal challenging his convictions for receiving stolen property, two counts of

forgery, and theft from a person in a protected class.1 We affirm.

I. Procedural History

Robinson and a codefendant were named in an indictment stemming

from offenses occurring between July 10, 2023, through August 9, 2023. Robinson

was charged with receiving stolen property; two counts of forgery, each furthermore

specifying that the victim was an elderly or disabled adult and the value of the loss

to the victim is $1,000 or more and less than $7,500; and theft from a person in a

protected class that furthermore specified that the victim was elderly and the value

of the loss to the victim is $1,000 or more and less than $7,500.

The matter proceeded to a bench trial, a Crim.R. 29 motion was made

at the close of the State’s case, and Robinson was ultimately found guilty of all counts

in the indictment as charged. Robinson was sentenced that same day to one year of

community-control sanctions and ordered to pay restitution to the bank that

reimbursed the victim for his loss. His appeal alleges a single assignment of error

for our consideration:

The evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a verdict against defendant-appellant.

1At trial, Robinson clarified that there is not a hyphen between “Lee” and “Robinson” as reflected in the indictment and thus reflected in the caption of this matter. II. Factual History

Robert (“the victim”), who resides in Rochester, New York, testified

that he and his brother handle finances, i.e., “paying all the bills . . . reconcile

checking and savings accounts” for his 93-year-old mother, who resides in

Brecksville, Ohio. (Tr. 17.) At the time of the forgery, the victim was a co-owner of

the account. In August 2023, the victim discovered that there was a discrepancy

related to one of the checks he had written on behalf of his mother. Specifically, the

victim testified that in July, he wrote a check to State Farm for $27.41 that had

cleared in the amount of $2,300.44 and that the payee had been altered to read

“Treshaun Lee Robinson.”

The images of the front and back of the check were introduced as

evidence, and the victim testified that “the date, the payee[,] and the amount have

been altered [but that] is my signature and my memo for the [insurance policy]

number.” (Tr. 18.) The victim testified that a second check in this batch of checks

appeared to be altered as well. Both checks were filled out by the victim in July and

put in a mailbox located at the post office in Broadview Heights, Ohio. Upon his

discovery of the altered checks, he filed a police report with the Brecksville police

department.

Brian Scabbo (“Det. Scabbo”), a detective at the Brecksville police

department, testified that he had been assigned this matter. He testified that he

subpoenaed the institutions where each check had been negotiated and that the

check at issue in this matter was negotiated through Dollar Bank. Det. Scabbo noted that the fraudulent check bore the same name — Treshaun Lee Robinson — as the

signer on the Dollar Bank account where the check had been negotiated. The

account was virtually unused until the altered check was deposited and its contents

were distributed into a CashApp account, a peer-to-peer payment service, bearing

the username “Treshau.”

On cross-examination, Det. Scabbo acknowledged that the signatures

on the account signature card, the back of the altered check, and Robinson’s driver’s

license application appear different from each other, though on recross-examination

Det. Scabbo opined that two of the three signatures were similar, and acknowledged

that signatures done on an electronic pad differ from those made with a pen on

paper. Cross-examination also uncovered that Det. Scabbo had not subpoenaed

CashApp. Det. Scabbo admitted that he was unable to find a connection between

Robinson and the codefendant and between Robinson and the Broadview Heights

Post Office where the checks had been mailed at the same time.

Robinson testified in his own defense. He stated that he was recently

laid off from a job at Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport and that he does not

have any criminal history aside from traffic offenses. He agreed that he has a

personal account with Dollar Bank and stated that he opened an account at Dollar

Bank under the name of his business of which he is the sole member and operator,

Tregotit, LLC. He testified that he registered this entity with the Secretary of State

in 2020 and he planned to “open up an entertainment business.” (Tr. 69.) Robinson

testified that he did not use the account from November 2022 through August 2023. He stated that he was unaware of the alleged activity in his account until after he

was arrested in this matter. Robinson denied having any connection to the victim,

the codefendant, and Broadview Heights generally. When shown the altered check

and the signature on the back, Robinson denied that any of the handwriting was his

own. He also introduced his passport as an exhibit to show that the signature also

differed from that on the altered check, but admitted that the signature on his

passport differed from his signature on his driver’s license application. Robinson

also noted that the signature on the altered check had a circle or loop where the “T”

was crossed and noted that this loop is not present on any of the other documents.

On cross-examination, Robinson admitted that he did not contact the police to

report the unauthorized use of his bank account, but clarified that this was only

because he did not know about the activity until after he was arrested.

III. Law and Analysis

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires this court to

determine whether the State met its burden of production at trial and whether the

evidence, if credible, would sustain a conviction. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d

380, 386 (1997). A sufficiency challenge inquires as to whether, after the 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 beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991).

On appeal, Robinson generally contests his identity, i.e., that he was

not the individual who actually did the actions resulting in these convictions. He argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that he was responsible

for intercepting the check, altering it, depositing it into his bank account, and then

transferring the deposit to a CashApp account bearing the username, “Treshau.” He

also contends that to convict him, the trial court must have improperly stacked

inferences, which is impermissible.

The rule barring factfinders from stacking inferences is extremely

limited and only applies to inferences that are drawn exclusively from other

inferences. State v. Maynard, 2012-Ohio-2946, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.). However, a trier

of fact may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence in evaluating a

defendant’s guilt because both types of evidence carry the same weight and possess

the same probative value. State v. Lash, 2017-Ohio-4065, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.). A

conviction may be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone. State v.

Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 124 (1991).

We disagree with Robinson’s arguments. After a thorough review of

the record, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence upon which any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements suggesting that

Robinson was the individual who intercepted the check, altered it, deposited it, and

withdrew the funds in a CashApp account with a username that coincides with the

first seven letters of his name. Evidence was presented that (1) the check cleared in

a Dollar Bank account that belonged to Robinson’s LLC, of which he is the only

member; (2) the check was signed “Treshaun Robinson”; (3) the funds were

transferred to a CashApp account bearing the username, “Treshau” (4) the Dollar Bank records included a copy of Robinson’s driver’s license, and (5) in court, Det.

Scabbo identified Robinson as the individual pictured in the driver’s license.

Robinson admitted that he owned and controlled the bank account where the check

had been negotiated but denied having a CashApp account at all, despite the

username of the account being “Treshau.”

Moreover, the extensive signature analysis and comparisons that

were made at trial indicate that in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have determined that the

signatures were all made by the same individual. The trial court commented that its

own comparison of the signatures indicated that they were similar and made by the

same individual. During sentencing, the court explained: “I do see similarities: in

particular the small loop at the bottom of the ‘T,’ the kind of curved ‘T’ at the top, it

clearly looks to me that it is substantially just like the one that [Robinson] admits is

his signature.” (Tr. 111.)

All of this evidence taken together, construed as true, and viewed in

the light most favorable to the prosecution provide sufficient circumstantial and

direct evidence of Robinson’s guilt. We do not find that the trial court relied upon

any impermissible inference stacking in reaching its verdict, nor is the evidence

discussed insufficient to sustain a conviction because it fails to demonstrate that

Robinson had done the acts of which he was accused. Accordingly, we overrule

Robinson’s sole assignment of error.

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.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURS; EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., DISSENTING:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I do not believe the

State met its burden of production because there was insufficient evidence to

support the convictions. I am particularly concerned because this decision will lead

to the conviction of wholly innocent persons who are themselves the victims of

fraud. Had the State introduced identification evidence that established Robinson

was the only person who could have deposited funds into the account or that the

CashApp account used to withdraw the funds was tied to an IP address owned by

Robinson, I would be far more comfortable with the majority’s result. Because the

State did not, I cannot agree with the majority’s resolution of this case.

It is well settled that “merely establishing that the defendant’s name

is the same as that of the alleged offender is insufficient to prove identity.” State v. Bailey, 2017-Ohio-2679, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Gray, 2010-Ohio-2530, ¶ 7

(7th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2004-Ohio-3036, ¶ 23 (7th Dist.); State v.

O’Neil, 107 Ohio App.3d 557 (6th Dist. 1995). “There must be a ‘significant

correspondence of identifying characteristics’ between the defendant and the person

with the same name who is implicated in an offense.” Id., quoting State v. Wilson,

1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4740 (2d Dist. Oct. 24, 1997).

Regarding the deposit itself, the evidence established that the altered

check was deposited into Robinson’s account via a mobile application. There was

no evidence presented that established that Robinson was the sole person capable

of depositing the check. The detective acknowledged that he did not know what

application was used to deposit the check. Further, no one from the bank testified

regarding mobile check deposits or provided any information regarding methods a

person could use to deposit a check into an account. Additionally, there was no

evidence presented that Robinson deposited the check. It is a reasonable inference

that the perpetrator altered the check in order to deposit it into Robinson’s account;

however, we cannot infer that Robinson is the person who deposited and altered the

check. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the funds from Robinson’s account were

committed almost immediately after the deposit. So quickly that there is no

evidence that Robinson was aware of the deposit and withdrawal. Moreover, the

detective did not subpoena CashApp for their records or attempt to determine the

IP addresses of the devices used to deposit and/or withdraw funds from the account. The fact that Robinson’s name and account were used to commit this crime suggests

he is a suspect. However, the law requires more than a suggestion to find guilt

Based on my review, the evidence presented by the State was

insufficient to establish Robinson perpetrated the crimes charged. Robinson

opened the business account a few years before the transaction in question and the

detective only requested two months of records, which established the account had

very little activity during that time. More records might have provided further

context; however, the records provided suggest Robinson did not use the account

frequently and might not have noticed a quick deposit and withdrawal. Additionally,

Robinson did not know Robert nor his family, had no connection to the post office

where the checks were mailed, and there was no evidence he received or altered the

check. The majority relies on the testimony regarding Robinson’s signature and the

trial court’s observations; however, at best this established similarities between

Robinson’s known signature and the signature on the forged check. Given the lack

of any other evidence establishing Robinson deposited and/or withdrew the check,

I would find that the similarities are insufficient to establish Robinson’s identity.

See Mentor v. Riskin, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5758 (11th Dist. Dec. 3, 1999.)

This type of crime seems to be on the rise, though I did not find many

similar cases in Ohio. However, the cases that have addressed comparable

situations include evidence that the defendant in some way took ownership or action

regarding the funds deposited in their account. In a strikingly similar case, State v. Dorsey, 2025-Ohio-2977 (9th

Dist.), the two victims mailed checks to separate entities. Those checks were stolen,

and the checks were altered to list Dorsey as the payee and deposited into Dorsey’s

bank account. The court of appeals found that sufficient evidence supported

Dorsey’s convictions for grand theft, forgery, and receiving stolen property, where

the State established that the checks were deposited in person into Dorsey’s account

at two different branches of her bank and there was no attempt to immediately

withdraw the funds. Id. at ¶ 9. Additionally, the evidence established that after the

first check was deposited it was declared fraudulent and the funds removed. The

account ran a negative balance until the second check was deposited, after which a

series of purchases followed. Id. at ¶ 13. See also In Commonwealth v. Jones, 219

A.3d 205 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019) 2 (finding sufficient evidence supported convictions

for forgery where the defendant opened the account with an initial deposit of $25,

attempted to deposit a suspicious check by mobile deposit for over $900,

immediately attempted to withdraw funds at a different bank branch, and when that

failed, attempted to withdraw funds again at the original bank branch); Peters v.

State, 2020 Tex.App. LEXIS 1676 (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2020) (Sufficient evidence

established defendant’s guilt where he opened an account with an initial deposit of

$25, mobile deposited a series of $150 checks, where bank employees testified that

2 PA. Superior Court I.O.P. 65.37 designated this a nonprecedential decision,

though the rule allows citation for persuasive purposes only. defendant owned the account and that the mobile deposits could not have been

accidental, and there was no report of fraudulent activity regarding the account).

Data breaches have become so common that they are almost

unremarkable. We are constantly warned that our information is unsafe and can be

used for nefarious purposes. A large part of this crime was conducted electronically.

The use of Robinson’s name and account point a finger directly at him, but I would

find, especially in this type of case, that the use of his name was insufficient as a

matter of law to establish guilt. The evidence of how the check was deposited and

how it was withdrawn is too speculative. The State’s evidence relies on Robinson’s

name and account to leap to the conclusion that he was the perpetrator. It is

reasonable to infer that someone with knowledge of Robinson’s existence and his

account used his name to deposit the funds and created a CashApp account using a

portion of Robinson’s name to withdraw those funds. However, I would find it is

impermissible to stack the inferences to find that Robinson was the person who

committed these acts.

Accordingly, I would sustain the assignment of error.