State v. Lovelace , 2023 Ohio 339 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Lovelace, 2023-Ohio-339.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-05-032
: OPINION
- vs - 2/6/2023
:
CHASE ALEXANDER LOVELACE, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 22CR038918
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Johnna M. Shia, for appellant.
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Chase Alexander Lovelace, appeals his felony conviction for failure
to comply with the signal of a police officer.
{¶ 2} On December 16, 2021, a complaint was filed in the Franklin Municipal Court
charging appellant with third-degree felony failure to comply with the order or signal of a
Warren CA2022-05-032
police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B).1 Pursuant to the complaint, the municipal
court issued a warrant for appellant's arrest. On January 10, 2022, appellant was arrested
pursuant to that warrant and remained incarcerated in the county jail in lieu of bail for the
entire pendency of this case. Appellant waived his preliminary hearing and the matter was
bound over to the grand jury. On February 14, 2022, appellant was indicted for the same
offense with which he had been charged in municipal court.
{¶ 3} During a pretrial hearing on March 4, 2022, the trial court determined that
appellant's speedy trial time expired on April 7, 2022.2 However, the trial court sua sponte
extended the trial time due to an "unusually heavy trial schedule." On April 12, 2022,
appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, and his
counsel orally moved for dismissal on those same grounds at a pretrial hearing on April 14,
2022. The trial court denied the motions on April 19, 2022, and the matter proceeded to a
jury trial on April 21, 2022.
{¶ 4} At trial, the state presented testimony from Erica Robinson, who stated that
on the morning of December 14, 2021, appellant came to her home to install a doorbell
camera. She left for work at 9:15 a.m. in a Dodge Charger that had been rented from
Enterprise for her use by her parents. Robinson's roommate, Karlin Wilson, arranged for
Robinson to drop her off in Franklin on Robinson's way to work and then pick her up later
that day. When Robinson returned home from work around 4:30 p.m., appellant was still
at her home. Robinson received a text message from Wilson between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00
1. Appellant was charged under R.C. 2921.331(B). Pursuant to division (C)(5)(a)(ii) of the statute, a violation
of division (B) is a felony of the third degree if the jury finds that the operation of the motor vehicle by the
offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.
2. As explained below, pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and (E), and R.C. 1.14, appellant’s speedy trial
period should have ended on April 12, 2022.
-2-
Warren CA2022-05-032
p.m. to come pick her up, but Robinson fell asleep on the couch with her purse—which
contained the keys to the Charger—at her side.
{¶ 5} Wilson testified that the Charger, driven by appellant, arrived to pick her up.
Aware that appellant was as an acquaintance of Robinson, Wilson assumed that Robinson
sent him to come pick her up and she got in the passenger seat of the Charger.
{¶ 6} Appellant, on the other hand, testified that though he came to Robinson's
home to install the doorbell, he never drove the Charger. Appellant contended that a man
named Jeff Karl came to pick him up in the afternoon and the two went to Robinson's work
before going out that evening.
{¶ 7} The state also presented testimony from Officer Wallace and Chief Colon.
The officers testified that on the evening of December 14, 2021, they witnessed a Dodge
Charger run a red light, for which they initiated a traffic stop. During the stop, Officer
Wallace approached the driver's side of the Charger and spoke to both the passenger and
the driver. The driver did not have a driver's license or any form of identification but gave
the name "Chase Lovelace" and a social security number that matched that for a "Chase
Lovelace," except for the last digit.
{¶ 8} A few moments later, Chief Colon approached the driver's side window. He
testified that he spoke to the driver and asked the driver to remove the keys from the vehicle.
The driver then revved the engine of the car and sped away. With Wallace at the wheel,
the officers pursued the Charger at speeds of over 95 miles per hour, during which the
driver drove over curbs, ignored traffic signals, and drove in and out of traffic. There were
times during the pursuit that the driver turned off his headlights. After determining that it
was no longer safe to continue to chase the Charger because of the volume of other
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the officers decided to terminate the chase.
-3-
Warren CA2022-05-032
{¶ 9} Thereafter, the officers ran the Tennessee license plate of the Charger and
determined that it was an Enterprise rental car. Robinson's address was listed on the
paperwork for the vehicle, so the officers proceeded to Robinson's home. Around that same
time, the officers received information from dispatch that a Dodge Charger with the same
Tennessee license plate had been stolen by an individual named Chase Lovelace. When
the officers arrived at Robinson's home, they spoke with Robinson and Wilson about the
incident, who both stated that appellant stole the vehicle. The officers recognized Wilson
as the passenger in the Charger they had just pulled over.
{¶ 10} After hearing the evidence, the jury found appellant guilty, and the court
sentenced him to a 36-month prison term. Appellant now appeals his conviction, raising
two assignments of error for our review.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED LOVELACE'S MOTION TO
DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.
{¶ 13} Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss
on speedy trial grounds. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court's "broad reason
of a crowded trial docket, without further explanation" does not constitute a "reasonable
continuance" pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H).
{¶ 14} Appellate review of speedy-trial issues involves a mixed question of law and
fact. State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-08-125, 2018-Ohio-702, ¶ 33. In
reviewing these issues, we defer to the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by
competent, credible evidence, but we review the application of the law to those facts
independently. Id.{¶ 15} The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Section 10, Article I of the Ohio
-4-
Warren CA2022-05-032
Constitution. State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27, 32 (2002). The General Assembly
preserved this right by enacting Ohio's speedy trial statutes, namely R.C. 2945.71-73.
Wilson at ¶ 30.
{¶ 16} R.C. 2945.71(D) provides that a defendant shall be brought to trial on all
charges within the time period required for the highest degree of offense charged. R.C.
2945.71(D). For an individual against whom a felony is pending, as was the case here, the
defendant "shall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after the person's
arrest." R.C. 2945.71(C)(2). For the purposes of computing time under division (C)(2),
"each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall
be counted as three days." R.C. 2945.71(E). More simply, this means that a defendant
who is held in jail must be brought to trial within 90 days.
{¶ 17} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that these statutes set forth "mandates to
which strict adherence is required." State v. Wentworth, 54 Ohio St.2d 171, 173 (1978).
However, the supreme court has further held that "the prescribed times for trial set forth in
R.C. 2945.71 are not absolute in all circumstances," and that "a certain measure of flexibility
was intended by the General Assembly by the enactment of R.C. 2945.72, wherein
discretionary authority is granted to extend the trial date beyond the R.C. 2945.71 time
prescriptions." Id., citing State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 208 (1976).
{¶ 18} R.C. 2945.72 sets forth circumstances where these extensions are permitted.
As applicable here, under R.C. 2945.72(H), a court may sua sponte grant a continuance
provided the trial court (1) records the continuance through its journal entry prior to the
expiration of the statutory period prescribed by R.C. 2945.71, (2) identifies the party to be
charged with the continuance, and (3) "briefly indicates the reasons requiring the
continuance." State v. Noble, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2007-03-008, 2008-Ohio-355, ¶ 15;
State v. Geraldo, 13 Ohio App.3d. 27, 31 (6th Dist.1983) (collecting cases). With respect
-5-
Warren CA2022-05-032
to the third requirement, the trial court's record must "affirmatively [demonstrate] the
necessity for a continuance and the reasonableness thereof." Noble at ¶ 10, quoting Aurora
v. Patrick, 61 Ohio St.2d 107, 109 (1980).
{¶ 19} Here, appellant was arrested on January 10, 2022, and was held in jail in lieu
of bail. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and (E), he should have been tried by April
11, 2022, which was a Sunday. We note that this calculation differs from that of the trial
court, who found that the speedy trial time expired on April 7, 2022. Pursuant to R.C. 1.14,
because April 11, 2022, was a Sunday, appellant's speedy trial time should have been
extended to April 12, 2022, which was the following Monday.3 It is unclear how the trial
court calculated April 7, 2022, to be the last day of the speedy trial period. Regardless, the
trial court's calculation does not alter our analysis.
{¶ 20} While it is clear that appellant was not afforded a trial within the time provided
by R.C. 2945.71(C) and (E), the trial court properly invoked R.C. 2945.72(H) by sua sponte
granting a continuance until April 21, 2022—just nine days after the expiration of the speedy
trial period.4 At the pretrial hearing on March 4, 2022, the court explained on the record its
reasons for the continuance. The court stated, "I have two jury trials a week between now
and May with the exception of the murder case which is set. I have one murder case that
week, so we've set it on the 21st of April." Defense counsel acknowledged the scheduling
conflicts and made the court aware that appellant wished to exercise his speedy trial rights.
The court further explained by stating, "Mr. Lovelace, I have looked at my docket. This is
the absolute earliest that I can get this trial in, so I am going to extend the speedy trial date.
3. R.C. 1.14 states, "The time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding
the first and including the last day; except that, when the last day falls on Sunday or a legal holiday, the act
may be done on the next succeeding day that is not Sunday or a legal holiday."
4. We note that the trial court’s calculation of the expiration of the speedy trial period as April 7, 2022, would
mean that the continuance was for a total of fourteen days, which is negligible in this case.
-6-
Warren CA2022-05-032
. . ." The court filed a journal entry on March 7, 2022, extending the time for trial well before
the expiration of the statutory period. In its entry, the trial court stated, "The Court has
examined the docket in the coming weeks, and it is not possible to get the case tried within
the speedy trial time because of an unusually heavy trial schedule."
{¶ 21} The Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that a trial court must
"affirmatively demonstrate that a sua sponte continuance by the court was reasonable in
light of its necessity or purpose," and that "mere entries by the trial court will ordinarily not
suffice, except when the reasonableness of the continuance cannot be seriously
questioned." State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 209 (1976). Further, the supreme court has
also held that "court congestion may be a valid ground under subsection (H) for extending
an accused's trial date beyond the time periods provided for by R.C. 2945-71," [sic] but
"practices which undercut the implementation of the ‘speedy trial' provisions within R.C.
2945.71 and 2945.73 must not be employed to extend the requisite time periods.'"
(Emphasis sic.) State v. Wentworth, 54 Ohio St.2d 171, 174 (1978).
{¶ 22} In Lee, the court upheld a continuance pursuant to R.C. 2945.73(H) that
extended the speedy trial period by two days beyond the prescribed 90-day period due to
a "crowded docket and judge's conference." Lee at 210. In contrast, the Wentworth court
found that a continuance of more than double the prescribed period entered upon the
"barebones declaration of a crowded docket" stood in "marked contrast to the facial
reasonableness of the continuance approved in Lee." Wentworth at 175.
{¶ 23} Based on these principles, this court has held that "scheduling conflicts,
crowded dockets, or the lack of an available courtroom, are reasonable bases necessitating
a continuance under R.C. 2945.72(H)." State v. Redelman, 12th Dist. Clinton, CA2012-04-
010, 2013-Ohio-657, ¶ 24 (finding a 39-day continuance due to a crowded docket and the
considerable strain on the defense's ability to prepare for trial based on newly issued
-7-
Warren CA2022-05-032
charges to be facially reasonable). Further, this court has held that "under R.C. 2945.72(H),
a court may sua sponte grant a continuance, if "the trial record affirmatively demonstrates
the necessity for a continuance and the reasonableness thereof." State v. Noble, 2008-
Ohio-355 at ¶ 10.
{¶ 24} Under the circumstances herein, we find that the trial court did not err in
denying appellant's motion to dismiss. As with the above cases, the trial court's docket was
congested, and the court granted a continuance that was only nine days beyond the speedy
trial expiration date due to two other jury trials and a murder trial. The court stated the
reasons for the continuance both on the record and in its journal entry and did so before the
expiration of the speedy trial period. While appellant argues that the reason provided by
the court in its journal entry was too "broad," and that "a general assertion of a crowded
docket with numerous trial [sic] set alone should not suffice as a reasonable basis," the
reasonableness of this nine-day continuance cannot be seriously questioned. This is not a
case where the court used a "mere entry" to extend the statutory period to a degree that
undercuts the implementation of the speedy trial provisions.
{¶ 25} Accordingly, because appellant's speedy trial rights were not violated,
appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 26} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 27} LOVELACE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY CONVICTION IS NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE NOR THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 28} Appellant argues that his conviction for failure to comply with the signal or
order or a police officer was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, appellant asserts that the state failed to show
that he was the driver of the Dodge Charger. Appellant discredits the testimony of Chief
-8-
Warren CA2022-05-032
Colon, Officer Wallace, and Karlin Wilson, who all identified appellant as the driver of the
vehicle.
{¶ 29} "It is well settled that in order to warrant a conviction, the evidence must
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the person who
committed the crime at issue." State v. Jividen, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-10-067,
2021-Ohio-2720, ¶ 11. The reasonable doubt standard is "proof that an ordinary person
would be willing to rely and act upon in the most important of his own affairs." R.C.
2901.05(E). The "identity of the accused may be established by direct or circumstantial
evidence, which have the same probative value. State v. Bostick, 12th Dist. Warren Nos.
CA2022-03-013 and CA2022-04-015, 2022-Ohio-4228, ¶ 15.
{¶ 30} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 13. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an
appellate court "examines the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if
believed, would support a conviction." Id. In contrast, a manifest weight challenge,
"concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial, to
support one side of the issue rather than the other; weight is not a question of mathematics,
but depends on its effect in inducing belief." (Emphasis added.) State v. Babyak, 12th Dist.
Madison Nos. CA2009-10-023 and CA2010-03-006, 2010-Ohio-3820, ¶ 17.
{¶ 31} As this court has previously stated, "a finding that a conviction is supported
by the weight of the evidence must necessarily include a finding of sufficiency." State v.
Stodgel, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2012-04-010, 2013-Ohio-1109, ¶ 34. Though a review
of the sufficiency of the evidence and a review of the manifest weight of the evidence are
separate and legally distinct concepts, "[a] determination that a conviction is supported by
-9-
Warren CA2022-05-032
the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency." State
v. Enoch, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-117, 2020-Ohio-3406, ¶ 21.
{¶ 32} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, a reviewing court must look at the entire record to weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, as well as consider the credibility of the witnesses. Barnett at ¶
14. In reviewing the record, we must ask if the trier of fact "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. Cephas, 12th Dist. Buter No. CA2021-05-051, 2021-Ohio-4356, ¶
9. While our review requires us to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight given to
the evidence, "these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide." State v.
Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81. Accordingly, an
appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence "only in
extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor
of acquittal." State v. Roberson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-01-003, 2021-Ohio-3705,
¶ 29.
{¶ 33} Appellant was convicted of R.C. 2921.331(B), failure to comply with the signal
of a police officer. The sole issue is whether appellant was the non-compliant driver of the
Dodge Charger. After reviewing the evidence, we find that appellant's conviction was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury heard testimony from Chief Colon,
Officer Wallace, and Karlin Wilson regarding the identity of the appellant as the driver. The
jury also watched the dashcam footage from Officer Wallace's police cruiser which showed
the conversation between the officers and the driver.
{¶ 34} Officer Wallace testified that upon initiating the traffic stop of the Dodge
Charger, she approached the passenger side of the vehicle with her flashlight. The footage
shows Officer Wallace shining her flashlight into the vehicle. Officer Wallace spoke with
- 10 -
Warren CA2022-05-032
both the passenger and the driver. Officer Wallace asked the driver for his driver's license,
and the driver said he did not have one. When asked for his name, the driver said "Chase
Lovelace" and gave a social security number that matched the given name except for the
last digit. The jury watched the video footage and heard the driver identify himself and give
a social security number. Officer Wallace also testified that she could "clearly" see the
driver, who she described as a tall, slender, white male with sleeves of tattoos on both arms.
At trial, Officer Wallace identified appellant as the driver of the vehicle. Officer Wallace also
testified that she had "face to face contact" with the passenger of the Charger, and was
able to identify Wilson as the passenger at trial.
{¶ 35} Chief Colon's testimony was similar to that of Officer Wallace. Chief Colon
testified that during the traffic stop, he saw Officer Wallace approach the passenger side
and engage the passenger and the driver. He thereafter approached the driver side of the
vehicle. Chief Colon testified that he spoke to the driver, who he described as a slender
white male with tattoos and facial hair. Chief Colon identified appellant in court as the driver
of the vehicle. Chief Colon testified that he saw the driver "with my eyes, as I made the
approach to speak to him as he was in the driver's seat * * * He also gave his social security
number, which was incorrect by one number."
{¶ 36} Chief Colon stated that shortly after terminating the chase of the Charger, he
and Officer Wallace received a call that a car had been stolen by an individual named Chase
Lovelace. Chief Colon pulled up an individual by that name on JusticeWeb and found "a
prior mugshot of the same guy." Though Chief Colon cannot remember what the driver was
wearing that night, Colon stated that the driver "looked at me" and he remembers that the
driver was tattooed. Upon arriving at Robinson's address, Colon stated that both Robinson
and Wilson told the officers that Chase Lovelace had stolen the Charger.
- 11 -
Warren CA2022-05-032
{¶ 37} Robinson's roommate, Karlin Wilson, who was the passenger in the Charger,
also testified. She stated that while she had not met appellant before he came to pick her
up, she did recognize the driver as Chase Lovelace, as she knew of him and "had him on
Facebook." Wilson also recognized Officer Wallace as the officer who pulled the Charger
over and identified appellant in court as the driver of the Charger.
{¶ 38} Appellant himself testified that he had seen Wilson around Robinson's home
and that he "got more familiar with her, once I started coming over to Ms. Robinson's a little
bit more." Appellant testified that he never drove the Dodge Charger; he said that an
individual named Jeff Karl came to pick him up and that the two went to Robinson's work
before going out that night. The appellant asserts that all of the other witnesses are not
telling the truth. Notably, no witnesses testified to corroborate appellant's testimony,
including Jeff Karl.
{¶ 39} The jury in this case, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to determine
"the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given to the evidence as it relates to the
perpetrator's identity." State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2013-10-019, 2014-Ohio-
4625, ¶ 41. The jury clearly believed the testimony of Chief Colon, Officer Wallace, and
Karlin Wilson that appellant was the driver of the vehicle. "The jury was in the best position
to judge the credibility of the [witnesses], and we will not disturb its credibility determination."
State v. Bostick, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2022-03-013 and CA2022-04-015, 2022-Ohio-
4228, ¶ 17. Moreover, "[i]t is well-established that when conflicting evidence is presented
at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the
trier of fact believed the prosecution testimony." State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. Brown No.
CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-6529, ¶ 17.
{¶ 40} In light of the consistent testimony of Officer Wallace, Chief Colon, and Wilson
that identified appellant as the driver of the Dodge Charger, as well as the dashcam footage
- 12 -
Warren CA2022-05-032
supporting that testimony, and the three in-court identifications of appellant as the driver,
we find that the evidence presented at trial does not weigh heavily in favor of acquittal. The
evidence provided allowed the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
was the driver of the Charger. All three of the witnesses had ample time and opportunity to
see the driver of the vehicle to be able to identify him. "The jury did not clearly lose its way
and create a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding appellant guilty of failing to comply
with an order or signal of a police officer." Bostick at ¶ 18. The only evidence presented at
trial that weighed in any favor of acquittal was the appellant's own testimony, and "it [is]
within the purview of the jury to believe the testimony of one witness more than another."
State v. Creamer, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 97-JE-27, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5796, 8–9 (Nov.
24, 1999).
{¶ 41} Accordingly, as appellant's conviction is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence and is thus supported by sufficient evidence, his second assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON J., concur.
- 13 -