COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72792 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION PHILLIP ALLEN : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JUNE 18, 1998 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-347877 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor THOMAS A. REIN, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: JAMES A. DRAPER, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Public Defender BY: DARIN THOMPSON, ESQ. Assistant Public Defender 1200 West Third Street, N.W. 100 Lakeside Place Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1569 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: -2- Appellant Phillip Allen appeals the decision of the trial court convicting him of receiving stolen property and sentencing him accordingly. Allen assigns the following error for our review: THE VERDICT FINDING PHILLIP ALLEN GUILTY OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY MOTOR VEHICLE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A TRIER OF FACT COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE HAD BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Allen was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property after police spotted him driving a 1985 Buick that had been reported stolen. The car's owner, Frank Jenkins, notified the police that his car was stolen from the area where he was working as a school crossing guard. The keys were in the ignition and the car was turned on. As he was escorting children across the street, he saw a male get into his car and drive away. Later that day, while on patrol, two police officers spotted the car traveling toward them on the opposite side of the street. The officers recognized the license plate of the car as one that had been reported stolen. The officers made a U-turn and began following the car. The driver, later identified as Allen, parked the car on a residential street. The driver and three other people exited the car, crossed the street, and began walking up the driveway of a home. The police officers approached the group and ordered them to stop and place their hands upon the house in order for the officers -3- to search them. The officers saw Allen pitch a set of car keys against the house. When asked why he threw the keys down, Allen replied that they were not his. After confirming that the keys fit the stolen car, Allen was arrested. At trial, the state presented the testimony of Jenkins and the two police officers who arrested Allen. Although Jenkins was unable to identify Allen as the man who stole his car, both officers testified that Allen was the man they saw driving the car. They also testified Allen was the man they saw toss the car's keys to the ground when they approached him. A jury found Allen guilty of receiving stolen property. In his sole assignment of error, Allen argues his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. To determine whether a judgment may be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence, 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. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 [citing State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175]. After following the dictates of Thompkins, we cannot say that the jury lost its way. The jury loses its way if the greater amount of credible evidence does not sustain the jury's verdict. Id. at 387. -4- In this case, the greater amount of the evidence showed Allen guilty of receiving stolen property, which is defined under R.C. 2913.51(A) as receiving, retaining, or disposing of property of another, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the property was stolen. Both police officers positively identified Allen as the driver of the stolen car, which belonged to Jenkins. Jenkins had not given Allen permission to use his car. Allen was charged with receiving stolen property and not theft of the car because Jenkins could not identify him as the man who stole his car. The officers saw Allen exit the driver's seat and saw him toss away the keys to the stolen car. When asked about the keys, Allen denied that they were his. This evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Allen was guilty of receiving stolen property. We affirm the decision of the trial court. 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. O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON ADMINISTRATIVE 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 .