COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70191 IN THE MATTER OF: : : MAKESHA JACKSON, A Minor : : Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION DECEMBER 19, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Court Division Case No. 9509216 JUDGMENT Affirmed DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For Appellant: For Appellee: DALE M. HARTMAN, ESQ. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES 950 Leader Building Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 526 Superior Avenue MARK R. MAJER, Assistant Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Prosecuting Attorney 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - JAMES M. PORTER, J., Appellant Makesha Jackson, a minor, appeals from the Juvenile Court's finding of delinquency for a crime which if she were an adult would be aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01). Appellant contends the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find no error and affirm for the reasons hereinafter stated. This matter arose out of an episode in which appellant forcibly removed and kept a necklace and rings from the victim, Charlotte Houston. On April 11, 1995, at 4:00 p.m., Ms. Houston (age 16) testified that she and her friend, Sherkitia Potter, were in the parking lot outside of Bowie's Mini-Mart at East 79th and Kinsman in Cleveland. They were approached by Makesha Jackson (aka Ann) and Tamika Brown whom they have known since fourth grade. At that time, Makesha Jackson told Houston that someone told her at school that Houston had called her a bitch. At that point, Houston denied the allegation and walked away with Makesha in pursuit. The appellant continued to accuse Houston of calling her a bitch. After that, Makesha snatched Houston's necklace off her neck. Houston stated that she tried to fend off Makesha, but she pulled out a knife (a box cutter blade) and ordered the victim to remove all of her jewelry. Holding the knife, Makesha pulled a ring off the victim's finger, then Houston removed six more rings and gave them to Makesha. Houston then fled to her grandmother's - 3 - home, where she lived. She explained what happened and called the police. Following the filing of criminal charges, Houston received threatening phone calls from a voice she identified as belonging to appellant Makesha Jackson. On behalf of the defense, Tamika Brown testified. She stated that the altercation did not occur in the parking lot of the mini mart, but at the school playground on East 73rd. She also testified that the incident occurred at 2:30 p.m. and not at 4:00 p.m. She stated that she and the appellant encountered Houston at the playground and that Houston and appellant began arguing. She did not see appellant pull out a knife. According to Tamika, both Houston and appellant swung at each other and then the crowd that was watching broke it up and everyone left. She stated that there was never any conversation about jewelry between the two girls, but that Houston's necklace came off when the girls were fighting. On cross examination she stated that Houston was lying. The defense then presented testimony from appellant's brother, Jermaine Jackson, who, like Brown, testified the altercation took place at a different time and place, a school playground at around 3:00 p.m. Jermaine testified that the victim took off the rings to fight with appellant. However, on direct and cross-examination, appellant failed to mention anything about the victim taking off her rings before the fight. He stated that the girls never actually fought because Houston ran away. According to Jermaine, after Houston ran away, girls from the playground took the rings. - 4 - Appellant also testified in her own behalf that she and the victim exchanged words, fought, and the victim then ran away. Appellant's testimony corroborates that she accused the victim of calling her a bitch, that a fight occurred, and the victim ran away, but denies stealing the jewelry or having a knife. After hearing the testimony, the Juvenile Court found the State's witness credible and found appellant delinquent and committed her to the care and custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a term of not less than one year and not to exceed her 21st birthday. This timely appeal ensued. The appellant's sole assignment of error states: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY ADJUDICATING APPELLANT AS A DELINQUENT WHEN THE DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. When the argument is made that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court is obliged to consider the weight of the evidence not its mere legal sufficiency. The defendant has a heavy burden in overcoming the fact finder's verdict. As this Court has stated: The weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are determinations to be made by the triers of fact. State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 24 O.O.3d 150, 434 N.E.2d 1356. If there was sufficient evidence for the triers of fact to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt this court will not reverse a guilty verdict based on manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 528 N.E.2d - 5 - 523, paragraph four of the syllabus, certiorari denied (1989), 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1177, 103 L.Ed.2d 239. State v. Rios (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 288, 291. Also, see, State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273. In the case at bar, the judge weighed the credibility of all the witnesses and decided the State had properly proved its case. In reaching that decision, it is presumed a judge considered all relevant testimony, demeanor of witnesses, and all competent evidence. There was sufficient evidence from the victim, if believed by the court, to find the appellant guilty of the offense and therefore delinquent. The judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled. 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 Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SPELLACY, C.J., and TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J., CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .