COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60993 CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION SALAHUD-DIN RAHIM MARTIN : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : AUGUST 20, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Garfield Hts. Municipal : Case No. CR-90-6511 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: JOSEPH DIEMERT Maple Heights Prosecutor 5353 Lee Road Maple Heights, Ohio 44137 For defendant-appellant: HYMAN FRIEDMAN Cuyahoga County Public Defender ROBERT INGERSOLL, Assistant The Marion Building, Room 307 1276 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1569 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J.: Defendant-appellant, Salahud-Din Rahim Martin, entered a plea of no contest to one count of misuse of a credit card (R.C. 2913.21[C]). Appellant now timely appeals the conviction entered following his no contest plea. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the appellant's conviction. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I SALAHUD-DIN RAHIM MARTIN WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY HIS CONVICTION FOR MISUSE OF A CREDIT CARD, AS THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST HIM DID NOT ALLEGE A CRIME. In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the fol- lowing: (1) that the indictment was not sufficient to inform the appellant of the crime charged; and (2) there were insufficient facts to support the trial court's finding that appellant was guilty of misuse of a credit card (R.C. 2913.21) following his no contest plea where one of the essential elements of the crime, purpose to violate the statute, was not contained in the language of the indictment. These arguments, which will be addressed in turn, are without merit. As to appellant's first argument, an indictment is suffi- cient if it provides a means of identifying the offense so that - 2 - the defendant is given notice of the offense with which he is charged. State v. Reyna (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 79. If a defen- dant fails to raise the issue of insufficiency at the trial level, defendant waives the matter. Id., at 81; R.C. 2941.29; Crim. R. 12(G). Thus, since appellant in the present case failed to make an objec-tion to the form of the indictment at the trial court level, he has waived raising this alleged insufficiency on appeal. As to appellant's second argument, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that before a trial court can make a finding of guilty after a no contest plea, the court is required to view the facts to determine if the facts establish all the elements of the offense. Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 148. The misuse of a credit card statute (R.C. 2913.21[C]) stat- es, in pertinent part, that no person, with purpose to violate this section, shall receive, possess, control or dispose of a credit card. R.C. 2913.21(B)(2) states, in pertinent part, that no per-son, with purpose to defraud, shall obtain property by the use of a credit card. In the present case, the complaint filed against appellant states the following: Before me, Annette M. Camarato, a Deputy Clerk of the Garfield Heights Municipal Cour- t, personally came Ptlm. Donald Grossmeyer, who being duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says that on or about the 2nd day of August, 1990 about 8:40 P.M. at 20650 Libby Rd., Maple Heights, Ohio in said County and State, one Rahim Martin 4726 Osborne Road, Garfield Heights, Ohio (DOB 06-02-72) SSN 275-72-6872, did receive, possess, con- trol or dispose of a credit card, to wit: - 3 - possession of a Norwest Bank VISA Card, No. 4205-0061-0490-9975, expires 4/91, in the name of Sandra M. Barnett. In violation (sic.) Section 2913.21C2 of the Ohio Revised Code, *** a misdemeanor of the first degree in such cases made and provided, and further says not. While the exact language of the indictment fails to state that the appellant possessed the credit card of Sandra Barnett with the purpose of defrauding the owner, the appellant told the trial court that Sandra Barnett was no relation to the appellant, that his sister gave it to him, and that he went to Randall Mall the next day and got something with the credit card. In addi- tion, the record indicates that the trial court reviewed the court file which includes police reports from witnesses. The police reports include statements that the appellant told the store clerk that the credit card was his mother's and that appel- lant ran off when the clerk attempted to call the mother's home phone number. Also, a letter from Sandra Barnett in the file states that her purse was stolen in Cleveland on the afternoon of appellant's arrest and that she had not given her credit card to the appellant and he did not have permission to use the card. Based on the above, we conclude that there were sufficient facts to support the trial court's finding that appellant "pur- posely" used the credit card without the owner's permission. Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - 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 Garfield Heights Municipal 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, J. BLACKMON, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment 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. .