State v. Wheeler

2025 Ohio 5572

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wheeler, 2025-Ohio-5572.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 1-25-09 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

JONATHAN E. WHEELER, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2024 0048

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: December 15, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Chima R. Ekeh for Appellant

John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 1-25-09

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan E. Wheeler (“Wheeler”), appeals from

the March 17, 2025 Judgment Entry issued by the Allen County Court of Common

Pleas, following a jury trial and sentencing. Wheeler argues that his conviction for

aggravated robbery was not supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} On April 11, 2024, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Wheeler on

two counts. The first count was for rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), as a

first-degree felony. The second count was for aggravated robbery, in violation of

R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), as a first-degree felony. The charges arose from an altercation

between Wheeler and the victim, K.K., on February 10, 2024. The case proceeded

to trial from February 4 to 7, 2025.

{¶3} During the trial, K.K. testified she was alone in a camper with Wheeler.

They got into an argument, Wheeler threatened her, grabbed her by the back of the

head, and then sexually assaulted her. While Wheeler was allegedly raping K.K.,

she kicked him off of her and ran out of the camper. Wheeler chased after K.K.,

caught up with her, and strangled and punched her repeatedly in the face, resulting

in her temporarily losing consciousness. She regained consciousness and saw

Wheeler standing over her and reaching into her purse—where she kept her wallet

-2- Case No. 1-25-09

with her identification, social security card, birth certificate, and a bank card.

Wheeler took K.K.’s wallet and ran. K.K. never got the wallet or its contents back,

and she did not give Wheeler permission to take those items from her.

{¶4} The jury found Wheeler not guilty of rape but guilty of aggravated

robbery. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of six to nine years. This

appeal followed.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶5} Wheeler raises a single assignment of error for our review:

Assignment of Error

Appellant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.

III. DISCUSSION

{¶6} In the assignment of error, Wheeler makes two arguments to support

his contention that his conviction for aggravated robbery was not supported by

sufficient evidence. First, the evidence at trial was insufficient to demonstrate that

he intended to deprive K.K. of her purse and its contents. Second, the evidence was

insufficient to demonstrate that he inflicted the serious physical harm on K.K. “in

attempting or committing a theft offense.” R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).

A. Standard of Review

{¶7} Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a

question of law. State v. Dent, 2020-Ohio-6670, ¶ 15. Thus, our review is de novo.

Id. A sufficiency challenge disputes whether a party met its burden of production

-3- Case No. 1-25-09

at trial. State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. “In a sufficiency-of-the-

evidence inquiry, the question is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a

light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dent at ¶ 15, citing

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 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.” Jenks at paragraph two of the

syllabus. Thus, “[i]n assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not resolve

evidentiary conflicts or assess the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Jackson, 2023-

Ohio-2193, ¶ 26 (3d Dist.); see also Jenks at 279.

B. Applicable Law

{¶8} The portion of the aggravated robbery statute Wheeler was convicted

of violating provides, “No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as

defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code . . . shall . . . [i]nflict, or attempt to

inflict, serious physical harm on another.” R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). In turn, R.C.

2913.01(K) includes a violation of R.C. 2913.02 as a “theft offense.” That theft

statute states: “No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of 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.

-4- Case No. 1-25-09

2913.02(A)(1). The term “deprive” includes withholding property of another

permanently or for a period that appropriates a substantial portion of its value or

use. R.C. 2913.01(C)(1). It also includes “[d]ispos[ing] of property so as to make

it unlikely that the owner will recover it.” R.C. 2913.01(C)(2).

{¶9} Neither the robbery statute (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)) nor the aggravated

robbery statute (R.C. 2911.01(A)(3)) requires the State to provide evidence that the

defendant inflicted physical harm (or, in the case of aggravated robbery, serious

physical harm) in furtherance of the purpose to commit the theft offense. 1 State v.

Godsey, 2024-Ohio-629, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.); State v. Thomas, 2005-Ohio-4106, ¶ 13

(the robbery statute “plainly does not require” that the force attendant to the theft

offense be inflicted in furtherance of a purpose to deprive another of property); State

v. Stevens, 2021-Ohio-2643, ¶ 90 (11th Dist.) (based on Thomas, “the aggravated

robbery statute does not require evidence that [defendant] attempted to inflict

serious physical harm in furtherance of the theft offense”). Those statutes also do

not require that the theft precede the physical harm (or serious physical harm) in

order to commit physical-harm aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) or

physical-harm robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). Godsey at ¶ 14; Stevens at ¶ 77,

88-91 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that “the state failed to present sufficient

1 The relevant portions of the robbery and aggravated robbery statutes, for purposes of this appeal, are virtually identical. Compare R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) with R.C. 2911.01(A)(3); see also State v. Godsey, 2024- Ohio-629, ¶ 13 fn. 3 (3d Dist.) (involving physical-harm robbery); State v. Stevens, 2021-Ohio-2643, ¶ 90 (11th Dist.) (explaining the robbery statute and aggravated robbery statute have similar statutory language).

-5- Case No. 1-25-09

evidence of aggravated robbery because any harm to [the victim] occurred prior to

[defendant’s] alleged theft”).

C. Analysis

{¶10} Wheeler makes several concessions as part of his appeal. He “does

not contest that he inflicted serious physical harm to K.K. by choking her to

unconsciousness.” (Appellant’s Brief at 4). He also “does not contest that he took

K.K.’s purse while she was unconscious.” (Id.). Additionally, in his recorded

interviews and jail calls, he “admitted to beating K.K. and also admitted to taking

her purse and tossing it.” (Id.).

{¶11} First, Wheeler argues the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate he

inflicted serious physical harm with the intent to deprive K.K. of her purse and its

contents. Rather, he claims the serious physical harm resulted when he chased K.K.

and caught her after she kicked him in order to escape the alleged sexual assault.

He asserts the evidence at trial demonstrates that he “impulsively” took K.K.’s purse

and “tossed it away aimlessly.” (Id.).

{¶12} However, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution,

the evidence at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to find, beyond a reasonable

doubt, that Wheeler had the “purpose to deprive” K.K. of her property as required

by R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and inflicted serious physical harm upon her while

attempting to commit the theft offense. Among other evidence, K.K. testified that,

after Wheeler strangled and punched her, she regained consciousness and saw

-6- Case No. 1-25-09

Wheeler standing over her, reaching into her purse. According to K.K., Wheeler

then took her wallet (including its contents) and ran away. K.K. never got the wallet

or its contents back, and she did not give Wheeler permission to take those items

from her. A rational trier of fact could have found the State proved, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that Wheeler either withheld K.K.’s property “for a period that

appropriates a substantial portion of its value or use” or “[d]ispose[d] of [her]

property so as to make it unlikely that [she] will recover it.” R.C. 2913.01(C)(1),

(2); see also Godsey, 2024-Ohio-629, at ¶ 12 (3d Dist.) (evidence supported that

defendant possessed the specific intent to deprive the victim of her phone). Wheeler

does not otherwise contend the evidence was insufficient to find he committed, or

attempted to commit, a theft offense, as an element of aggravated robbery.

{¶13} Second, Wheeler argues the evidence was insufficient to find he

inflicted the serious physical harm on K.K. “in attempting or committing a theft

offense.” R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). He contends there was “enough delay” between his

act of choking K.K. to unconsciousness and his act of taking her purse such that

they cannot “be considered contemporaneous nor part of ‘a single continuous

transaction.’” (Appellant’s Brief at 8).

{¶14} The pertinent question is whether, in committing the theft of the wallet

and its contents, Wheeler inflicted the serious physical harm on K.K. See Godsey,

2024-Ohio-629, at ¶ 11, 15 (3d Dist.). As stated above, it does not matter whether

Wheeler harmed K.K. and then committed the theft versus committed the theft and

-7- Case No. 1-25-09

then harmed K.K. Additionally, we have previously stated: “Caselaw and a

common sense reading of the robbery statute leads to the conclusion that a defendant

need not ‘[i]nflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another’

at the exact same instant that the defendant is physically taking property from its

owner in order to be found guilty of physical-harm robbery.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting

R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). We find the same logic applicable to aggravated robbery

committed in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).

{¶15} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in

committing the theft offense Wheeler inflicted serious physical harm on K.K. It is

reasonable to view K.K.’s testimony as proving Wheeler inflicted serious physical

harm on her in committing the theft offense, namely that he took her wallet as he

stopped strangling and hitting her, then left with the wallet. See Godsey, 2024-Ohio-

629, at ¶ 16 (3d Dist.); State v. Salvatore, 1985 WL 8632, *4-5 (8th Dist. Sept. 26,

1985) (affirming robbery conviction where, after beating and raping the victim, the

defendant took the coins that had fallen from the victim’s pocket). Wheeler’s

concessions and K.K.’s “testimony does not show there was a delay or lapse

between [Wheeler] afflicting the [serious] physical harm on her and taking her”

wallet. Godsey, 2024-Ohio-629, at ¶ 16 (3d Dist.); compare State v. Griggs, 2012-

Ohio-1837, ¶ 2-3, 13 (8th Dist.) (insufficient evidence defendant committed robbery

where defendant used force against the victim by rubbing and holding her, then after

-8- Case No. 1-25-09

the victim had walked away, called 911, spoke with emergency responders, and told

defendant she was calling to have him arrested, defendant took the phone from

victim’s hand). A jury could reasonably find the acts of strangling and beating K.K.,

taking her purse while she was unconscious, and removing her wallet from her purse

and running away with it were “all part of a continuous event, with the harm and

theft taking place in the same immediate period of time.” Godsey, 2024-Ohio-629,

at ¶ 16 (3d Dist.); compare State v. Madera, 2010-Ohio-4884, ¶ 22-23 (8th Dist.)

(insufficient evidence defendant committed aggravated robbery where there was

enough delay between the theft and the physical altercation that they could not be

considered contemporaneous nor part of a single continuous transaction).

Therefore, we reject Wheeler’s arguments.

IV. CONCLUSION

{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignment of error is

overruled. Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court of Common

Pleas.

WALDICK, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

-9- Case No. 1-25-09

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is

overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Mark C. Miller, Judge

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-10-