COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69990 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : : OPINION ANTOINE ALLEN : : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JANUARY 30, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. CR-325833. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor James P. Boyle Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: William H. Smith, Esq. Cook Smith & Schwartz Co., L.P.A. 940 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SWEENEY, JAMES D., C.J.: Defendant-appellant Antoine Allen appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2929.11 and possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24. Subsequent to the verdict of guilty entered by the jury, the court sentenced the appellant to a two-year term of incarceration and a fine of $2,500.00 on count one. On count two, the court imposed a one- year term of incarceration and a fine of $1,000.00. The appellant's driver's license was suspended for six months. On March 19, 1995, at approximately 4:55 a.m., the appellant was proceeding south on East 79th Street in Cleveland, Ohio, at a high rate of speed. As he passed through the intersection of East 79th Street and Superior Avenue, he failed to stop for a red traffic light. Officer Sandy Oritz, observing this infraction of the law from his police cruiser, followed the appellant. At trial, Officer Oritz identified the appellant as the lone occupant of the vehicle. After parking his 1982 Cutlass Supreme at 7514 Redell Avenue, the appellant exited the vehicle and fled the scene. Officer Oritz gave chase, located the appellant in a garage on East 80th Street, and arrested the appellant. Both a pager and $368.00 were recovered from the appellant. During this chase, Officer Oritz radioed his dispatcher for backup. Officers Daunch and Robinson were informed of the location of the appellant's vehicle and they secured the vehicle as - 3 - requested. Upon performing an inventory search, these officers found three rocks of crack cocaine underneath the armrest. Officer Oritz testified that pagers are frequently involved in drug arrests as drug dealers use them to contact individuals who wish to purchase narcotics. The officer also stated that it is fairly common to find large amounts of cash on a person suspected of drug violations. The appellant took the stand on his own behalf. The essential facts of the case were not disputed by the appellant, but the appellant asserted that the cocaine did not belong to him. At approximately 1:00 a.m., the appellant and Michael Jones went to Vel's on the Circle. The appellant entered the premises, but because he was not old enough to enter, Jones took the appellant's vehicle and left. Jones returned for the appellant at approximately 4:00 a.m. After the appellant dropped Jones off at East 79th Street and Superior Avenue, he proceeded to his girlfriend's home on Redell Avenue. The appellant testified that he knew he proceeded through the light after the light turned; that he observed the police cruiser; that he was aware that the officer was behind him; that he ran from the officer because he had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. The appellant stated that he earns $5.00 an hour at United Labor Agency performing home maintenance; the money found on his person was earned. The appellant testified that he has a pager so - 4 - that others may reach him and that the drugs found in the vehicle did not belong to him. The appellant stipulated that he had a prior drug trafficking conviction. The appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL WHERE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED WITH EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS. II THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. In the first assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the appellee failed to present sufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction. Crim.R. 29(A). In the second assignment of error, the appellant argues that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court sets forth the test for appellate review of both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273. A verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. A reviewing court will not reverse a verdict where there is substantial evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that all the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a - 5 - reasonable doubt. State v. Ely (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169; State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230. The weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact to determine. Jenks, supra. In the case sub judice, the appellant was convicted for a violation of R.C. 2925.11, which states: No person shall knowingly possess, or use a controlled substance. and possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2924.23, which states: No person shall possess or have under his control any substance device, instrument, or article with purpose to use it criminally. The jury heard the eyewitness testimony of Officer Oritz stating that the appellant violated a traffic regulation, was followed, fled from the police, and was then apprehended in a nearby garage. The officer was certain, and the appellant did not contest, that the appellant was the lone occupant of the Cutlass Supreme from which the drugs were recovered. The appellant did not contest that he was both the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The appellant also did not contest the fact that he was found with a pager and a large sum of money on his person. These facts, taken in conjunction, constitute sufficient evidence upon which to base the appellant's conviction. The jury was entitled to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and determine weight of the evidence. Jenks, supra. - 6 - The appellee presented substantial evidence upon which the jury could reasonably conclude that all the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Since reasonable minds could reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact, this court will not disturb the verdict. The appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - 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. ANN DYKE, J., and TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. JAMES D. SWEENEY CHIEF JUSTICE 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 .