COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71054 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : LEE TISDEL, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : AUGUST 28, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-337124 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Alison Little Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Patricia J. Smith 4403 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44103 2 NAHRA, J.: Appellant, Lee Tisdel ( Tisdel ) appeals from a May 29, 1996 conviction for aggravated burglary, a violation of the former R.C. 2911.11. Because it is supported by the weight of the evidence, we affirm the conviction. In March, 1996, Perry Williams' home was broken into and several articles of property were removed. Although Williams was not at home during the break in, his neighbor, Shelia Blaine ( Blaine ) witnessed the burglary. She testified that from her neighboring home, she saw Tisdel and a women leaving Williams' home carrying a television and other items. Blaine indicated that she went outside and confronted Tisdel. She stated that appellant said that Williams' owed him money and that he would keep the items until he was paid. Although Tisdel remained outside Williams' home for some time, he eventually fled. Cleveland police located him several blocks away. Because Tisdel matched a description of the suspected burglar, the officers detained him. They returned him to Williams' address and once there, Blaine and other witnesses identified appellant as the burglar. Appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated burglary. The case proceeded to trial. The state presented the testimony of Blaine, Perry Williams and two of the responding police officers. Appellant did not testify on his own behalf and did not call a witness. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court duly sentenced him. 3 Appellant appealed and assigned one error for review that states: The verdict finding the appellant guilty of aggravated burglary is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In State v. Mann, this court articulated the standard of review relevant to appellant's assignment of error. The court, reviewing the entire record weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. * * *. See Tibbs v. Florida (1982), 457 U.S. 31, 38, 42. 93 Ohio App.3d 301, 310, 638 N.E.2d 585, quoting, State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 72, 75, 20 OBR 215, 219, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720; State v. Stokley (Jan. 16, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 70172, unreported. A reviewing court will not reverse a conviction where there is substantial evidence upon which the trier of fact could conclude reasonably that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mann, supra; Stokley, supra. The weight assigned to the evidence and its credibility are primarily issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeJohn (June 6, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69297, unreported. A reviewing court may consider the following factors when assessing the propriety of a conviction: 1) the credibility, certainty, and reliability of the evidence; 2) whether evidence was contradicted; 3) whether a witness was impeached; 4) what remained unproven; 5) the bias of a witness; and, 6) the extent to which the evidence was vague, uncertain, conflicting, fragmentary or illogical. Stokley, supra; 4 State v. Eddy (December 5, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69724, unreported. In this case, the judgment is supported by the weight of the evidence. First, the state presented Blaine's eyewitness testimony. She stated that on the night of the burglary she heard strange noises coming from the adjoining unit of her duplex. She looked outside and saw Tisdel and a woman removing a television, a phone, and other items from Williams' home. From that position she could see Tisdel's face about five feet away and illuminated by her porch light. She testified that she approached Tisdel and had a twenty to thirty minute conversation with him. At trial, Blaine identified Tisdel as the burglar. Additionally, she indicated that she examined Williams' front door immediately following the break in. She testified that the door had been damaged and the lock and hinges were broken. Her testimony was credible and the trial court assigned it appropriate weight. In addition, the state presented Williams' testimony. He indicated that he was not home during the burglary. He stated that his front door was damaged the night of the burglary. He testified that his television, radio and phone were removed from his home. Two Cleveland police officers also testified. They indicated that on March 15, 1996, they responded to a reported burglary at Williams' address. After arriving at the scene and receiving a description of the burglar, they combed the neighborhood in search of the suspects. They indicated that they discovered Tisdel several blocks away. He matched the witnesses' description of the burglar. 5 They returned to Williams' home where witnesses identified Tisdel as the burglar. In its totality, the state's evidence was consistent, clear and compelling. Accordingly, we do not find that the jury clearly lost its way or that a miscarriage of justice is manifest in his conviction. Appellant's 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 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. PORTER, P.J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA 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 .