COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59308 STATE OF OHIO : : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : ROBIN TURNER : OPINION : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 24, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT CASE NO. 8811438 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: JOSEPH HOFFER Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: GERARD J. KOVACIK 22650 Lorain Avenue Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 -2- SPELLACY, J.: On October 11, 1988, a complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas - Juvenile Division alleging appellant Robin Turner ("appellant"), a juvenile, and Cherole Thompson, also a juvenile, had committed aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01. A hearing held before a referee on September 15, 1989, revealed the following: Dorothy Newsome, an undercover security guard at F.W. Woolworth in downtown Cleveland, testified she became suspicious when appellant and Thompson entered the store and began placing items in a shopping basket while looking around to determine if they were being observed. Newsome further testified that when appellant and Thompson split up, she followed appellant, who had the shopping basket, and watched her enter the toy department in the lower level of the store. Newsome stated that when appellant emerged from the toy department and rejoined Thompson she no longer had the shopping basket with her. Newsome went on to testify that, as appellant and Thompson attempted to leave the store, she had them stopped. Newsome further stated that she searched appellant and Thompson, finding several items from the store in a bag carried by appellant. In addition, Johnson stated that appellant and Thompson each had a knife. Thompson testified that, after entering the store, appellant carried a shopping basket while she carried a book bag. She stated that, after placing several items in the shopping basket, -3- they went to the toy department and stuffed the items they intended to steal into the book bag. Thompson further stated that she and appellant were stopped as they attempted to leave the store and that Newsome searched them, finding the stolen items, along with two knives, in the book bag. On cross-examination, Thompson testified that prior to their stuffing the items into the book bag appellant bought some candy. She also stated that she and appellant were together the entire time they were in the store. Appellant, age fifteen at the time of the incident, testified that after entering the store and walking through the make up and clothing departments, she bought some candy on the main floor while Thompson, who had appellant's book bag, went to the lower level of the store. She further testified that after Thompson rejoined her they attempted to leave but were stopped and searched. Appellant went on to state that Newsome did not find any stolen items in her possession. She admitted one of the knives found by Newsome belonged to her. On January 16, 1990, the trial court, upon the recommendation of the referee, found appellant to be delinquent and placed her on probation and referred her to the victim aid unit for two hundred hours of community service. Appellee timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error: I. THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTED THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE VIEWED IN A LIGHT -4- MOST FAVORABLE TO THE POSITION OF INNOCENCE. II. THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTED THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE VIEWED IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO INNOCENCE. I. In her first assignment of error, appellant essentially contends the trial court's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's assignment of error lacks merit. The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. When addressing whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court reviews: *** the entire record, 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. Davis (1988), 49 Ohio App. 3d 109, 113. A review of the record reveals that some inconsistencies exist among the testimony of the three witnesses. Despite this fact, however, we conclude the trial court could properly find that appellant committed aggravated robbery, a violation of R.C. 2911.01. Appellant's first assignment of error is not well taken. -5- II. In her second assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court improperly relied on circumstantial evidence in reaching its verdict. Appellant's assignment of error lacks merit. R.C. 2911.01 provides in pertinent part: (A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after such attempt or offense, shall *** (1) Have a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control. A review of the record reveals the trial court could find that appellant violated R.C. 2911.01 based on direct evidence. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Juvenile Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction 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. KRUPANSKY, C.J., and HARPER, J., CONCUR LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .