COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69324 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF CLEVELAND : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and v. : : OPINION KENNETH TROUPE : : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 1, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 94-CRB-32924-A JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: CAROLYN W. ALLEN, ESQ. JOHN B. GIBBONS, ESQ. Chief Prosecuting Attorney 2000 Standard Building City of Cleveland 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ANN M. FEIGHAN, ESQ. Assistant City Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Kenneth Troupe appeals in this accelerated appeal from his bench trial conviction for petty theft. Defendant was charged with petty theft for allegedly shoplifting a jacket from a K-Mart store on November 24, 1994. K- Mart security officer William Lowe testified for the prosecution at trial. Lowe testified that he observed defendant enter the store at approximately 8:20 p.m. Defendant was wearing just a sweater despite the fact that it was cold outside. Defendant subsequently walked through the store, picked up a jacket offered for sale, and began wearing it. Defendant ultimately walked past the red register line, which was the last point of purchase, and past the customer service center without attempting to pay for the jacket he was wearing. Lowe apprehended defendant approximately forty feet in front of the exit doors before defendant left with the merchandise. The price tag had been removed from the $59.99 jacket; however, a plastic tie remained on the sleeve. The trial judge found defendant guilty of petty theft as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to thirty days in jail and a $300 fine, but suspended 27 days of the jail sentence 1 along with $250 of the fine and placed defendant on probation. Defendant appeals raising assignments of error concerning the 1 It is not clear from the record whether this appeal has become moot on the grounds that defendant has completed his sentence and paid his fine. Therefore, we shall address the merits of the appeal. - 3 - sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence presented during his bench trial. Defendant's first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO RULE 29(A), OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF OF [sic] THE OFFENSES CHARGED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This assignment lacks merit. Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for petty theft because there was no evidence that he intended to deprive K-Mart of the jacket. Defendant argues he had not left the store and also complains that the jacket was not introduced into evidence. The standard governing claims that a conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, syllabus paragraph two; State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. Cleveland Codified Ordinance ("C.C.O.") 625.05 defines the offense of petty theft in pertinent part as follows: (a) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or service, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways: * * * - 4 - (2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to consent; (3) By deception ***. The record contains sufficient evidence to establish each element of this offense. Security guard Lowe testified that defendant walked into the store wearing a sweater and began wearing a jacket offered for sale as if it were his own. Without making any attempt to pay for the jacket, defendant ultimately walked past the cash registers toward the exit. When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence indicates that defendant had the purpose of depriving K-Mart of the jacket when he knowingly obtained or exerted control over the jacket beyond K-Mart's consent or by deception in violation of C.C.O. 625.05. It is well established that K-Mart was not required to wait until defendant left the store with the merchandise to apprehend him for shoplifting. State v. Williams (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 232, 234. Moreover, the fact that the prosecution did not introduce the jacket into evidence does not defeat his conviction. Id. at 234. Accordingly, defendant's first assignment of error is overruled. Defendant's second assignment of error challenges the manifest weight of the evidence as follows: THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. This assignment lacks merit. - 5 - Defendant recasts the same arguments made above to argue that his conviction for petty theft is against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, his argument is no more persuasive in this context. The standard governing claims that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence is whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. To make such a determination, this court is to review the entire record and to weigh the evidence along with all reasonable inferences therefrom and to consider the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Martin, supra. The sole witness who testified at trial was K-Mart security officer Lowe. Lowe testified that he was certified and had four years experience as a security officer prior to the offense in this case. Lowe's testimony that he observed defendant shoplifting the jacket was clear, unambiguous, and credible. There was no evidence that defendant was merely walking within various departments of the store. Quite literally, the evidence was completely one-sided. Under the circumstances, defendant has failed to show the trial judge lost his way when evaluating the evidence in this case. Accordingly, defendant's second assignment of error lacks merit. 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 Cleveland 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. SARA J. HARPER, PRESIDING JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, 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 .