COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67779 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION ALONZO K. STALLINGS, : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 11, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-282125 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Diane Smilanick Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Charles M. Morgan, Jr. 11510 Buckeye Road Cleveland, Ohio 44104 -2- NAHRA, J.: Appellant, Alonzo K. Stallings, is appealing his convictions for felonious assault and aggravated robbery. He contends the convictions were against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm. Robert Kyle testified that he drove to the Banbury Village Apartments around 2:30 a.m. on April 10, 1992, to purchase crack cocaine. Kyle saw a drug seller, Steve Washington (also known as "Tut"), standing on the street abutting the apartment complex. Kyle asked Tut for a $20 rock and stated he had a $100 bill and needed change. Tut asked David Washington and appellant, who were standing nearby, if they had change. As Tut walked away from the car, he said, "take him," to David and appellant. David Washington reached into the car and turned off the ignition. Washington tried to grab the keys and the $100 bill. Kyle was able to grab his money back from David Washington and push David's hand out of the vehicle. As Kyle started up his car, he saw out the corner of his eye appellant holding a gun in his hand. Kyle tried to get the car in gear when the gun went off. The bullet went through Kyle's elbow, into his stomach, causing serious injuries. Janine Goldsby testified that around 2:30 a.m., she and her friend Yvonne Jason went to Banbury Village Apartments to buy crack cocaine. Outside the apartment building, the two women met up with Steve Washington, David Washington and appellant. The three men -3- had a conversation that they wanted to "gank" somebody, which means to take someone's money. Goldsby saw a white car pull up and Tut talked to the driver. Tut walked over to David and appellant. Appellant said, "Yeah, I have it," and opened his jacket to reveal a gun. Tut went up to the car and then walked back over to David and appellant and told them Kyle had a $100 bill. Then, all three men walked up to the car and Tut told the others to, "get him." David Washington reached into the driver's window and a struggle ensued. Alonzo handed the gun to David, who shot the victim. Goldsby stated she talked with Yvonne about the facts of the case. Yvonne Jason testified that she was angry at Steve Washington because she gave him money for drugs and Steve did not give her drugs or her money back. Yvonne stated that before the shooting, Steve, David and Alonzo were talking, and Alonzo showed the gun to David. Steve talked to the driver of the white car, and then told David and Alonzo to, "get him." David tried to turn off the car, but the driver turned it back on. Then, David snatched the gun from Alonzo's pocket and shot the driver. Yvonne stated she talked with Janine and the victim about the case. Alonzo Stallings testified that the only "gank" he discussed with Steve and David was Steve taking Yvonne's money. David Washington motioned him over to the white car, but appellant did not know why. He did not intend to rob or shoot anyone. David said to appellant, "he got a hundred dollars, you got change?" Then David said, "I want to take it." David grabbed the gun out of -4- appellant's back pocket and tried to rob the victim. Appellant never showed the gun to David, but anyone could see the gun in his back pocket. I. Appellant's first assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSES OF FELONIOUS ASSAULT AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. Appellant is alleged to have aided and abetted the felonious assault and aggravated robbery. There must be some evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that: (1) appellant acted with the kind of culpability required for felonious assault and aggravated robbery, R.C. 2923.03(A), and (2) appellant assisted, enticed or encouraged these offenses. State v. Sims (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 56. There was testimony that appellant either handed the gun to David Washington, or made the gun available to Washington. Thus, there was evidence from which a jury could conclude appellant assisted the felonious assault and aggravated robbery. Appellant must have knowingly assisted the felonious assault. R.C. 2903.11. There was some evidence that appellant planned the -5- robbery and planned to use a gun, or at least knew what was taking place and provided the gun. Thus, appellant was aware his actions of providing the gun would probably cause physical harm or attempted physical harm to another. See R.C. 2901.22(B) (definition of knowingly), State of Cooey (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 25. The culpability required for aiding and abetting aggravated robbery is the defendant knowingly assisted others in depriving an owner of his property. State v. McSwain (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 600, 607, quoting State v. Mabry (1982), 50 Ohio App.3d 13, 17. There was evidence that appellant planned the robbery and/or knew a robbery was taking place and participated. Thus, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant had the requisite culpability and assisted in the aggravated robbery and felonious assault. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. II. Appellant's second assignment of error states: THE VERDICT OF THE JURY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND MUST BE REVERSED. In determining if a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court reviews the record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be -6- reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, quoting Tibbs v. Florida (1982), 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652. The court should consider whether the evidence is credible or incredible, contradicted or uncontradicted, reliable and unreliable, certain or uncertain, whether a witness was impeached and whether a witness' testimony was self-serving. State v. Mattison (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 10. A reviewing court cannot reverse a conviction if there is substantial, competent, credible evidence upon which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that all elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169. There was a conflict in the evidence over whether appellant knowingly assisted the aggravated robbery and felonious assault. Janine Golsby testified appellant planned to "gank" someone, showed his gun to the others, and handed the gun to David Washington. The victim testified he saw appellant holding a gun. Yvonne Jason testified appellant showed the gun to his friends before the robbery, and then David took the gun from appellant during the robbery. Appellant denied planning to rob anyone or showing the gun. Appellant said Washington snatched the gun from him. Resolving this conflict in the facts requires a determination as to which witnesses were credible. Credibility is primarily for the trier of fact to determine. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24. Appellant asserts Goldsby and Jason were not credible because they were under the influence. The women testified they had only one or two drinks -7- and no cocaine. Jason and Goldsby were angry at Steve Washington, but they were not angry at appellant. Although the testimony of the two women conflict over whether appellant handed the gun to Washington, the jury is entitled to believe one version of the events and disbelieve another. Neither Goldsby nor Jason were so lacking in credibility that the jury lost its way in believing their testimony. Cf. State v. Abi-Sarkis (1988), 41 Ohio App.3d 333. If the jury believed Jason's version of the events, they could still find appellant planned the robbery and provided the gun. We find that the jury did not lose its way in believing either Goldsby's or Jason's version of the facts, disbelieving appellant's version of the facts, and finding appellant knowingly assisted the offenses. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. -8- 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. BLACKMON, P.J., and HARPER, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA 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 .