COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72690 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : ANTON E. MYLES, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 21, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-347616 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Anthony J. Kellon Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellant: Darin Thompson Assistant Public Defender 1200 West Third Street, N.W. 100 Lakeside Place Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- NAHRA, J.: Appellant, Anton Myles, appeals his conviction after trial for violations of R.C. 2913.51, receiving stolen property, and R.C. 2923.24, possession of criminal tools. At trial, the prosecutor called four witnesses: Garfield Heights Police Officer Dale Merchant, Garfield Heights Police Lieutenant Robert Sackett, Garfield Heights Police Lieutenant Gary Wolske, and Jeffrey May. Merchant testified that on October 17, 1996, appellant was driving a maroon Chevrolet Monte Carlo in Garfield Heights, Ohio. He testified that he checked the Chevrolet's temporary license tags, determined that appellant had outstanding arrest warrants, stopped appellant, and arrested him. Merchant stated that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) tags did not match the condition of the car because one tag was rusty and another was rounded off and displayed in an odd manner and that he suspected that the car was stolen. He referred the matter for further investigation. Lieutenant Sackett testified that he inspected the car and determined that it was a 1986 year model Chevrolet. Sackett stated that he learned that the car was stolen from the Akron area on October 7, 1996. Sackett further testified that the VIN tags on the vehicle identified the car as a 1984 model year Chevrolet, consistent with appellant's registration form dated October 9, 1996. The registration form also provides that appellant purchased a 1984 Chevrolet from T. Williams on June 1, 1996. Sackett further -3- stated that he and Lieutenant Wolske investigated the VIN numbers identifying the car as a 1984 model and learned that the 1984 car's VIN tags were registered to Terrill Williams. Both Lieutenants Wolske and Sackett testified that Terrill Williams told them that he had sold a white 1984 Chevrolet in poor condition for a nominal price to appellant. Lieutenant Wolske testified that Williams said he left the license plates on the car for appellant to drive home and that when he called appellant for the plates, appellant said the car was stolen. Jeffrey May testified that his 1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was stolen on October 7, 1996, that the car was returned to him by the Garfield Heights police, and that the steering column of the car had been changed. Appellant did not present a defense. The jury convicted him of violations of R.C. 2913.51 and R.C. 2923.24. The court sentenced him to one year in prison. I. Appellant's first assignment of error reads: I. THE TESTIMONY BASED ON THE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF TERRILL WILLIAMS DEPRIVED ANTON MYLES OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITES STATES CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTED PLAIN ERROR. Appellant argues that Sackett's and Wolske's testimony relating Terrill Williams' statements is hearsay, without which the jury could not determine appellant knew the car was stolen and that VIN tags were switched. -4- The admission of indirect hearsay evidence has been recognized as error by courts of appeal in Ohio. See, e.g., State v. Cassidy (Mar. 6, 1990), Franklin App. No. 88AP-1054, unreported; State v. Mason (Nov. 9, 1983), Summit App. No. 11182, unreported. As the admitted evidence was not objected to at trial, the case is reviewed under the plain error standard set forth in Crim.R.52(B), explained in State v. Stover (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 179, 456 N.E.2d 833, syllabus para. 3, as: 3. Under Crim.R.52(B) a plain error commited by a trial court is an obvious error which is prejudicial to an accused, although neither objected to nor affirmatively waived, which if allowed to stand, would have a substantial adverse impact on the integrity of and public confidence in judicial proceedings. See, also, State v. Pumpelly (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 470, 602 N.E.2d 714, Part I. Accordingly, the admission of evidence in this case is reversible error only if the admission of that evidence prejudiced appellant and its exclusion would have produced a different result at trial. The following evidence was properly admitted at trial: 1) appellant was driving a maroon 1986 Chevrolet which had VIN plates identifying the car as a white 1984 Chevrolet; 2) on October 7, 1996, the car appellant was driving was stolen; 3) on October 9, 1996, appellant registered the car as a 1984 Chevrolet; and 4) appellant's registration form provides that he purchased a car with the VIN tags found on the stolen car in June, 1996. In this case, ample evidence was properly admitted with which the jury could convict appellant. Accordingly, we do not find that -5- had the hearsay been excluded the outcome of the trial would have differed. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. II. Appellant's second assignment of error reads: II. ANTON MYLES WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REPEATED FAILURE TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONY BASED ON INADMISSABLE HEARSAY SO UNDERMINED THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS THAT THE TRIAL CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS HAVING PRODUCED A JUST RESULT. In this assignment of error, appellant complains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not object to the admission of the hearsay evidence. As we determined that appellant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence, we cannot say he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE BLACKMON, A.J., and -6- MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. 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 .