COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71541 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : TOM SHIELDS, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JULY 31, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-337704 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Steve W. Canfil Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Donald Green Assistant Public Defender 100 Lakeside Place 1200 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 NAHRA, J.: 2 Appellant, Tom Shields ( Shields ), appeals from his conviction for abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02. For the following reason we affirm the conviction. On January 3, 1994, Tara Wilson ( Wilson ) walked home from work. She alleged that during her walk home, a man attacked her. Wilson testified that the man grabbed her, dragged her off for a distance and told her to shut up, be quiet and come with him. She fought off the assailant and he fled. Subsequent police investigation did not reveal the identity of her attacker. Wilson, who worked as a pharmaceutical technician at a local grocery store, testified that she next saw her attacker at her place of employment. She claimed that he approached her and apologized for the attack. Wilson stated that she saw him several additional times in the store. Wilson alleged that on one such occasion, he verbally accosted her. On the last such occasion, police arrested him for the alleged attack and continuing harassment. Shields was indicted on one count of abduction and one count of intimidation. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. The state presented the testimony of Wilson and the arresting officer. Wilson identified Shields as the man who both attacked and continually harassed her. Shields testified on his own behalf and denied her accusations in toto. The trial court found Shields guilty of abduction and duly sentenced him. Appellant appealed and assigned one error for review that states: 3 TOM SHIELDS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE HIS CONVICTION WHICH WAS [SIC.] AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Appellant contends that the manifest weight of the evidence does not support the conviction. 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, 4 uncertain, conflicting, fragmentary or illogical. Stokley, supra; State v. Eddy (December 5, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69724, unreported. In this case, Wilson's testimony and identification provides substantial evidence of appellant's guilt. Wilson clearly recounted the attack. She testified that as Shields grabbed her and dragged her away, she could clearly see his face. She stated that after the attack, he frequented her place of employment and both apologized for the attack and further harassed her. Her testimony demonstrates that she had substantial grounds upon which to identify him as the assailant. The trial judge assessed her credibility and assigned weight accordingly. In so doing, the trial court did not lose its way and the resulting conviction does not create a manifest miscarriage of justice. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 5 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. BLACKMON, P.J., and PATTON, 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 .