COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60954 : STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : MARVIN TROLLINGER : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT AUGUST 20, 1992 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No CR-253554 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Dennis McBride Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 20800 Center Ridge Road 8th Floor Justice Center Suite 211 1200 Ontario Street Rocky River, Ohio 44116 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J.: Marvin Trollinger defendant-appellant, hereinafter Appel- lant timely appeals his convictions for Attempted Grand Theft motor vehicle with a violence specification in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2913.02, and Criminal Tools with a violence specification in violation of R.C. 2923.24. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On May 25, 1990, Defendant and Kelvin Harris were arrested for attempting to steal a 1990 Chevy Blazer, which was parked on Rockwell in the city of Cleveland and belonged to Thomas Krieger. Detectives Michael J. Blanc and Ignatius Sown gave the following account of the arrest: At approximately 11:20 p.m. they observed a vehicle moving slowly on Rockwell Avenue; identified as occupants of the vehicle were Kevin Harris and Defendant. The detectives noticed Harris and Defendant's vehicle traveling slowly and occasionally stopping. Harris and Defendant would primarily stop next to General Motors vehicles, which the detectives testified are easy to steal. Ultimately, they pulled next to a 1990 Chevy Blazer. Harris approached the Blazer from the driver's side and Defendant approached from the passenger side. The detectives watched both men try to open the car, but the doors appeared to be locked. Harris was observed rocking the Blazer back and forth. The detectives verified that this motion was to determine if the car was equipped with an alarm system. The detectives further testified that they saw Defendant then attempt to pry under the front passenger door lock with a screwdriver. It was at that -3- point the detectives approached Harris and Defendant, and they were arrested. The detectives testified that the screwdriver was on the ground on the passenger side of the Blazer and fresh marks appeared on the passenger door near the lock. The owner of the Blazer testified that he was downtown having dinner on the evening in question. The scratches on his Blazer's passenger door were not there before that evening. No one was given permission to take his vehicle while he was at dinner. Evidence was also introduced that Defendant had a prior criminal record. Defendant's account of the events leading to the arrest were contrary to the detectives. Defendant denied attempting to break into the Blazer. Their counsel made a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case. The motion was denied, and not renewed at the close of all the evidence. Defendant appealed and now assigns two errors. Defendant's first assignment of error states: DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. Defendant's assignment of error lacks merit. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that counsel's performance has fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel's performance. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 at 142, 143, citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668. A showing of prejudice requires proof "that there -4- exists a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different." Id. See also, Strickland at 695-696. In the instant case, there is no evidence Defendant's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Moreover, no prejudice arose from Defendant's counsel's performance. Had Defendant's right to appeal the judgment of acquittal been preserved the result would have been the same. See, Strickland v. Washington. We reach this conclusion on the basis that, using a screw- driver to attempt to pry open the lock of an automobile is a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of an auto theft and the screwdriver constitutes a criminal tool. State v. Moore (Apr. 13, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55425, unreported. Defendant's second assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT'S RULE 29 MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AND A MANIFEST INJUSTICE WILL OCCUR IF DEFENDANT IS NOT GRANTED A NEW TRIAL. Defendant's second assignment of error lacks merit. Defendant's failure to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Crim. R. 29(A), waives his right to claim any error therefrom. See, E.g. State v. Whittmeyer (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 279. -5- Judgment affirmed. 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 Common Pleas 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. PATTON, P.J., and FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON 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 journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .