COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70877 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION STANLEY GRAYS : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JULY 3, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO.CR-333743 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor GEORGE RUKOVENA (#0018497) Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: JAMES A. DRAPER, Cuyahoga County Public Defender BY: SCOTT ROGER HURLEY (#0063858) Assistant Public Defender 100 Lakeside Place 1200 West Third Street Cleveland, OH 44113-1569 SPELLACY, J.: 2 Defendant-appellant Stanley Grays ( appellant ) appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01. Appellant assigns the following error for review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANT WHEN THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On December 27, 1995, Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority ( CMHA ) police apprehended appellant for the aggravated robbery of Kim Ferguson. At trial, Ferguson testified that on that date, she visited her cousin, Wendy, at Wendy's apartment. Wendy lived at East 26th or East 27th and Cedar Avenue. Ferguson left the apartment at approximately noon. She planned to ride a bus downtown to do some shopping. Ferguson walked toward a thirty-five foot tunnel-like walkway between two of the apartment buildings. She removed a small, thin, black plastic wallet from her purse in order to extract a bus pass. The wallet contained some old RTA passes, bus tickets and $30.00 in cash. Ferguson noticed a man, later identified as appellant, standingin the middle of the tunnel. Ferguson continued to walk through the walkway. Appellant approached her and stated, Bitch, give me your wallet. Ferguson saw a screwdriver in his hand 3 which appellant held as if he intended to stab her. Appellant either took Ferguson's wallet from her hand or she gave it to him. Appe llant ran through the tunnel toward Cedar Avenue with Fergusonin pursuit. As Ferguson exited the covered walkway, she asked a passerby in which direction appellant had gone. Ferguson began to run in the indicated direction. Then she saw a passing CMHA police car. Ferguson flagged down the police car and told the officers she had just been robbed. Ferguson told the officers the offender was the man running down Central Avenue. The police pursued appellant. Ferguson followed on foot. The police caught appellant around East 22nd Street and Central Avenue by the Juvenile Court Building. The police were searching appellant when Fergusonarrived at the scene of the arrest. Ferguson identified appellant as the robber and identified the screwdriver as the one used during the offense. Ferguson assisted the police in an unsu ccessful search for her wallet. Ferguson claimed to have never seen appellant prior to this incident. Daniel Gray testified he was one of the CMHA officers whom Fergus on approached on December 27, 1995. Gray and his partner were on a routine patrol when Ferguson came running to their patr ol car. She was very upset, crying, and screaming that someone had robbed her. Ferguson told the officers a man just had robbed her in the tunnelway of the apartments. The man had held a screwdiver to Ferguson's neck. Ferguson pointed out a man walking down the sidewalk on Cedar Avenue as being the robber. 4 After telling Ferguson to stay where she was, the CMHA police office rs pursued the man in their vehicle with lights and siren activated. The man had turned the corner onto East 22nd Street. He began running from the police. The police stopped the man about three-fourths of the way down the street near Central Avenue . A search of the individual yielded a knife-like object from his right rear pocket and a screwdriver from his back pocket. The man, appellant, was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the police vehicle. Appellant told the police Ferguson accused him of robbery because of a bad drug deal. Ferguson was driven to the scene by another police officer. She identified appellant as her assailant. Ferguson assisted Officer Gray and a Cleveland police officer in the search for her wallet but nothing was found. Officer Gray testified there was a lot of slush and snow on the ground. Appellant testified that on December 27, 1995, he drove a car stolen the previous day by appellant and a man known as Boobie. Appellant drove to his mother's apartment to ask for money. Upon being told by his mother that she did not have the requested funds, appellant made seven pieces of fake crack cocaine. He then went out onto Cedar Avenue in order to sell the counterfeit goods. Appellant stood by a tree picking at it with the screwdriver he had used to start the car due to the peeled steering column. Fergus on waved her hand at him. Appellant knew Ferguson was a neighborhood drug user. He had witnessed her purchasing drugs on 5 previous occasions and had been approached before by Ferguson in an attempt to purchase narcotics. Ferg uson asked if appellant had anything for thirty. Appellant said he did and pulled out his bag of fake drugs. Appellant kept the merchandise secreted in the pouch or pocket of his underpants. Ferguson took out a bank envelope and removed her money. After separating out $30.00, she put the remaining money back in the bank envelope. Ferguson handed appellant the $30.00. Appellant gave Ferguson two of the fake pieces of crack cocaine. Ferg uson tasted the wares and pronounced it to be foo-foo or fake narcotics. Ferguson asked appellant to return her money. When appellant refused, Ferguson stated she hoped she would see some of her boys. Ferguson would tell them appellant was selling dummies. After this threat, appellant began running down Cedar Avenue. When the police stopped appellant, they removed the screwdriver from his pocket. One officer knew appellant had money in his pocket because the officer had felt the money. Appellant's hands were handcuffed behind his back and he was placed in the police car. Appellant testified he was able to reach around and remove the $30.00 from his front pocket and hide it in his anus. The police removed appellant from the car and searched for the money three times but could not locate it. The officers also never found the remaining pieces of fake crack cocaine. Appellant claime d he flushed the fake crack cocaine down a toilet at the 6 police station. Although appellant was searched when he was booked at the City Jail and again upon his transfer to the county facility, the police never found the cash. Appellant testified he had the money with him the entire time he was in jail. The trial court, acting as the trier-of-fact, found appellant guilty of the charge. Appellant was sentenced to a five to twenty-five year term of imprisonment. II. In his assignment of error, appellant contends his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant argues Ferguson's testimony was uncorroborated in regard to the robbery. Her statement that she ran to the scene of the arrest was contr adicted by Officer Gray's testimony that another officer drove Ferguson to that location. Appellant seeks to cast doubt on Ferguson's credibility as Ferguson testified she is disabled due to chemical dependency and is on medication for major depression. Appellant also points out Ferguson's wallet never was found althoug h the police searched for it. Appellant presents his testimo ny as reliable and not self-serving as he admitted to several crimes. When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the test is whether, after reviewing the entire record and probative evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence, the court determines that the trier of fact clearly lost its way 7 when resolving conflicts in the evidence and created a manifest miscarriage of justice such that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. It is the trier of fact who is best able to weigh the evidence and pass on the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass(1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230. Only if reasonable minds could not fail to find reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt will an appellate court reverse a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79. Appellant's argumentregarding Ferguson's chemical dependency lends little support to his effort to attack Ferguson's credibility as appellant also is addicted to illegal narcotics. Ferguso n may rely entirely upon social security for her support but appellant's version of events involved a stolen vehicle and the sale of counterfeit illegal drugs. Further, appellant has prior convictions and numerous arrests. The screwdriver found on appellant's person by the police supports both Ferguson's and appellant's recitation of the incident. Past that, neither appe llant's nor Ferguson's story is corroborated by other evidence. Ferguson's wallet was not found but the police failed to find the cash or fake crack cocaine despite numerous searches of appellant. Credibility of witnesses primarily is for the trier of fact to determine. After reviewing the record, it cannot be said the 8 trial court clearly lost its way when resolving conflicts in the evid ence. Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 9 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pendin g appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directi ng the Common Pleas Court 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. PATRICIA BLACKMON, P.J. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. __________________________ LEO M. SPELLACY Judge N.B. This 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 journa lized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.22(B) 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 revi ew by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the jour nalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(B). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section .