[Cite as State v. Stockbridge, 2018-Ohio-4809.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITY OF ALLIANCE JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2018 CA 00106 STEVEN WENDELL STOCKBRIDGE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Alliance Municipal Court, Case No. 2018 CRB 00787
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Vacated
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 3, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CAITLYN R. SCHNEIDER LATHAN J. LIPPERMAN JENNIFER ARNOLD 3360 Tremont Road ANGELIQUE RUHL Suite 230 LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Columbus, Ohio 43221 470 East Market Street Alliance, Ohio 44601 Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 2
Wise, John, P. J.
{¶1} Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge appeals his conviction on one count
of violating Alliance Municipal Ordinance §1-765.04.
{¶2} Appellee is the City of Alliance.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
{¶3} For purposes of this Opinion which has been assigned to the accelerated
docket, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶4} On June 9, 2018, Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge was standing on
the sidewalk outside of the public library collecting signatures for an initiative - petition
concerning a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution concerning reduced medical
costs of dialysis for children. (T. at 20-24). Appellant was approached by Officer Cook,
who asked him if he had secured a permit to collect signatures. Appellant told Officer
Cook that he was advised by an attorney that he was not required to have a permit
pursuant to the First Amendment. Id.
{¶5} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City
Ordinance §1.765.03 Permit, Registration, License Required Solicitation for “knowingly
solicit[ing] signatures within the City of Alliance without a valid permit”.
{¶6} On June 11, 2018, Appellant appeared for his arraignment and entered a
plea of “not guilty”.
{¶7} On June 11, 2018, shortly after his arraignment, Appellant was again
standing on the sidewalk collecting petition signatures, this time outside of the Alliance
Police Department, when he was approached by Lieutenant William Morris. Lt. Morris
asked Appellant if he had a permit to collect the signatures, to which Appellant replied Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 3
that he did not. (T. at 25-26).
{¶8} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City
Ordinance §1.765.04 for “soliciting a residential neighborhood w/out a permit, on
sidewalk, public.”
{¶9} On July 2, 2018, a bench trial on both violations commenced in this matter.
{¶10} At trial, the court heard testimony from Officer Amabeli, Officer Cook,
Lieutenant Morris and Appellant, who represented himself.
{¶11} Officer Cook testified that on June 9, 2018, he observed Appellant collecting
signatures on public property, on the sidewalk, and that he did not have a permit from the
City of Alliance.
{¶12} Lt. Morris testified than on June 11, 2018, he observed Appellant speaking
with Detective Minich outside of the police station. (T. at 26). Shortly thereafter he
received a call from Det. Minich advising him that Appellant had solicited him to sign his
petition. Id. Lt. Morris located Appellant outside of the station, on the sidewalk, and when
he inquired as to whether Appellant had a permit to solicit signature in the City of Alliance,
Appellant told him that he did not. (T.at 26, 28). He further testified that Appellant told
him that he worked for a company which paid him to collect the signature. (T. at 27).
{¶13} Both Officer Cook and Lt. Morris testified that a permit is required to solicit
or petition for signatures within the City of Alliance. (T. at 23, 28).
{¶14} At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
violating both ordinances. The trial court imposed a fine of $100 on each offense and
ordered the fine reduced to $50 for each offense if Appellant obtained a permit to solicit
or provided proof of exemption under the ordinances. Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 4
{¶15} Appellant now appeals, raising the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE §1-765.04 WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY AND MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶17} “III. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE §1-765.03 VIOLATED AMENDMENTS ONE AND
FOURTEEN TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.”
I.
{¶18} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction was not
supported by the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. We agree.
{¶19} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). “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.”
Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
{¶20} 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
witnesses and determine “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 Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 5
be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485
N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–
Ohio–52, 678 N.E.2d 541. The granting of a new trial “should be exercised only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at
175.
{¶21} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 237 N.E.2d
212 (1967). The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and
credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.”
Davis v. Flicking, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997–Ohio–260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.
{¶22} As set forth above, Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating
Alliance City Ordinance 765.04 SALES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED, which
reads:
No person shall on any public street, alley, drive, lane, thoroughfare,
court, highway, boulevard or on the sidewalks thereof, solicit the sale of any
merchandise, wares, goods, foods, periodicals or other article of value for
present or future delivery.
{¶23} Upon review, we do not find that the record supports a conviction under
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Stockbridge, 2018-Ohio-4809.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITY OF ALLIANCE JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2018 CA 00106 STEVEN WENDELL STOCKBRIDGE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Alliance Municipal Court, Case No. 2018 CRB 00787
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Vacated
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 3, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CAITLYN R. SCHNEIDER LATHAN J. LIPPERMAN JENNIFER ARNOLD 3360 Tremont Road ANGELIQUE RUHL Suite 230 LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Columbus, Ohio 43221 470 East Market Street Alliance, Ohio 44601 Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 2
Wise, John, P. J.
{¶1} Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge appeals his conviction on one count
of violating Alliance Municipal Ordinance §1-765.04.
{¶2} Appellee is the City of Alliance.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
{¶3} For purposes of this Opinion which has been assigned to the accelerated
docket, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶4} On June 9, 2018, Appellant Steven Wendell Stockbridge was standing on
the sidewalk outside of the public library collecting signatures for an initiative - petition
concerning a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution concerning reduced medical
costs of dialysis for children. (T. at 20-24). Appellant was approached by Officer Cook,
who asked him if he had secured a permit to collect signatures. Appellant told Officer
Cook that he was advised by an attorney that he was not required to have a permit
pursuant to the First Amendment. Id.
{¶5} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City
Ordinance §1.765.03 Permit, Registration, License Required Solicitation for “knowingly
solicit[ing] signatures within the City of Alliance without a valid permit”.
{¶6} On June 11, 2018, Appellant appeared for his arraignment and entered a
plea of “not guilty”.
{¶7} On June 11, 2018, shortly after his arraignment, Appellant was again
standing on the sidewalk collecting petition signatures, this time outside of the Alliance
Police Department, when he was approached by Lieutenant William Morris. Lt. Morris
asked Appellant if he had a permit to collect the signatures, to which Appellant replied Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 3
that he did not. (T. at 25-26).
{¶8} Appellant was issued a citation charging him with violating Alliance City
Ordinance §1.765.04 for “soliciting a residential neighborhood w/out a permit, on
sidewalk, public.”
{¶9} On July 2, 2018, a bench trial on both violations commenced in this matter.
{¶10} At trial, the court heard testimony from Officer Amabeli, Officer Cook,
Lieutenant Morris and Appellant, who represented himself.
{¶11} Officer Cook testified that on June 9, 2018, he observed Appellant collecting
signatures on public property, on the sidewalk, and that he did not have a permit from the
City of Alliance.
{¶12} Lt. Morris testified than on June 11, 2018, he observed Appellant speaking
with Detective Minich outside of the police station. (T. at 26). Shortly thereafter he
received a call from Det. Minich advising him that Appellant had solicited him to sign his
petition. Id. Lt. Morris located Appellant outside of the station, on the sidewalk, and when
he inquired as to whether Appellant had a permit to solicit signature in the City of Alliance,
Appellant told him that he did not. (T.at 26, 28). He further testified that Appellant told
him that he worked for a company which paid him to collect the signature. (T. at 27).
{¶13} Both Officer Cook and Lt. Morris testified that a permit is required to solicit
or petition for signatures within the City of Alliance. (T. at 23, 28).
{¶14} At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
violating both ordinances. The trial court imposed a fine of $100 on each offense and
ordered the fine reduced to $50 for each offense if Appellant obtained a permit to solicit
or provided proof of exemption under the ordinances. Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 4
{¶15} Appellant now appeals, raising the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE §1-765.04 WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY AND MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶17} “III. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ALLIANCE
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE §1-765.03 VIOLATED AMENDMENTS ONE AND
FOURTEEN TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.”
I.
{¶18} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction was not
supported by the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. We agree.
{¶19} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). “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.”
Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
{¶20} 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
witnesses and determine “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 Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 5
be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485
N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–
Ohio–52, 678 N.E.2d 541. The granting of a new trial “should be exercised only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at
175.
{¶21} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 237 N.E.2d
212 (1967). The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and
credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.”
Davis v. Flicking, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997–Ohio–260, 674 N.E.2d 1159.
{¶22} As set forth above, Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating
Alliance City Ordinance 765.04 SALES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED, which
reads:
No person shall on any public street, alley, drive, lane, thoroughfare,
court, highway, boulevard or on the sidewalks thereof, solicit the sale of any
merchandise, wares, goods, foods, periodicals or other article of value for
present or future delivery.
{¶23} Upon review, we do not find that the record supports a conviction under
AOC §765.04, as Appellant was not soliciting the sale of merchandise or goods or other
“article of value” as contemplated by the ordinance. Appellant was not “selling” anything.
{¶24} While the City focuses on the fact that Appellant was ultimately paid by a
third party for the signatures collected, such arrangement does not transform the act of Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 6
petitioning citizens for signatures on a ballot-initiative into a for-profit commercial sales
transaction.
{¶25} Finally, we find that the Alliance Codified Ordinance defines “solicitation” as
follows:
(a) For the purpose of this chapter "solicit" and "solicitation" means
an unsolicited, person to person request, occurring on private property,
without invitation, of money, credit, property, financial assistance or other
thing of value on the plea or representation that the money, credit, property,
financial assistance or other thing of value will be used for any purpose.
(b) "Solicit" and "solicitation" also mean and include the following
methods of securing money, credit, property, financial assistance or other
thing of value on the plea or representation that it will be used for such
purposes as herein defined: the unsolicited, person-to-person offer, attempt
to sell or sale of, any advertisement, advertising space, book, card, chance,
coupon, device, magazine membership, subscription, ticket or other product
in connection with which any appeal is made, which occurs on private
property without invitation, for any purpose or where the name of any person
is used or referred to in any such appeal as an inducement or reason for
making any statement is made that the whole or any part of the proceeds
from any such sale will go or be donated to any charitable, religious, public
purpose, or other not for profit non-commercial purposes. The Mayor or
Police Chief may require individuals to disclose the foundation upon which
they claim a nonprofit exempt status hereunder. Stark County, Case No. 2018 CA 00106 7
{¶26} Further, nowhere in the ordinance does it refer to a permit, license or
registration requirement.
{¶27} Based on the foregoing, we find that the City failed to prove that Appellant
was engaged in solicitation for the sale of anything, and that his conviction was against
the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶28} Appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained.
II.
{¶29} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction
violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
{¶30} Based on our disposition of Assignment of Error I, we will refrain from
addressing Appellant’s second assignment of error.
{¶31} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, we hereby reverse the
decision of the Alliance Municipal Court and Appellant’s conviction under Alliance
Codified Ordinance §765.04 is vacated.
By: Wise, John, P. J.
Delaney, J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/d 1116