State v. Jones , 2020 Ohio 6904 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6904.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2020-02-003
: OPINION
- vs - 12/28/2020
:
ANDREW JONES, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 19-500-084
Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, Katie Wilkin, 103 E. Main Street,
Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for appellee
Craig A. Newburger, 477 Forest Edge Drive, South Lebanon, Ohio 45065, for appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Andrew Jones, appeals from his conviction in the Clinton County
Court of Common Pleas for failure to provide notice of a change of address. For the reasons
detailed below, we affirm.
{¶2} Appellant was convicted of one count of abduction with a sexual motivation in
violation of R.C. 2905.02, a third-degree felony. Appellant was also classified as a Tier II
Clinton CA2020-02-003
sex offender, which requires appellant to register his address with local law enforcement in
the jurisdiction in which he resides. Appellant registered his address at 5911 State Route
730, Lot 36, Wilmington, Ohio 45177.
{¶3} On May 6, 2019, appellant was indicted on one count of failing to provide
notice of a change of address in violation of R.C. 2950.05, a third-degree felony. The matter
proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶4} The state called Captain Justin Drake with the Clinton County Sheriff's
Department who testified that he oversees the sex offender registration and notification
program for Clinton County. During his testimony, Captain Drake identified a certified copy
of the notice of registration duties that appellant signed on December 10, 2018. The notice
of registration specified that, in order to change residence address, "you shall provide
written notice of that change to the sheriff with whom you most recently registered, and to
the sheriff in the county in which you intend to reside * * * at least 20 days prior to any
change." (Emphasis in original). Despite this, Deputy Drake explained that he was
contacted by the Adult Parole Authority and informed that appellant was no longer residing
at his registered address. As a result, Deputy Drake testified that he dispatched a patrol
deputy to verify the information received.
{¶5} Officer Seth Howard testified that appellant was not at his registered address
on several occasions. On March 18, 2019, Officer Howard testified that he knocked on the
door of appellant's registered address, but there was no answer. On March 22, 2019,
Officer Howard again went to appellant's registered address early in the morning, but there
was no answer. Officer Howard then called appellant's telephone number and spoke with
appellant. During their conversation, appellant stated that he would be home around 3:30
p.m. and so Officer Howard ordered appellant home so he could conduct a home inspection
pursuant to the terms of his parole. Appellant did not return home at the specified time and
-2-
Clinton CA2020-02-003
did not answer his phone when contacted again. On March 25, 2019, Officer Howard
attempted to locate appellant one more time at his registered address. This time, a different
person answered the door who stated that appellant was not at the residence. As a result,
Officer Howard informed the Clinton County Sheriff's Office that appellant was not compliant
with the rules of parole, nor was he able to locate appellant at his registered address.
{¶6} The state also called Charles Floyd, landlord and owner of Shady Oaks
Campground, the location which appellant listed as his registered address. Floyd testified
that appellant was not living at his registered address because he had sold his camper and
hadn't paid rent since January 29, 2019. Though Floyd was unaware of the exact date that
appellant moved, he testified that he stopped living in the camper toward the end of
February 2019. Floyd confirmed that appellant was not living in the camper on Lot 36 at
any date on or after March 20, 2019.
{¶7} During his case-in-chief, appellant called his stepfather, Bobby Outen. Outen
explained that he arranged for appellant to live in a camper on Lot 36 after his release from
prison, but that appellant had since moved "two doors down or two doors up."
{¶8} The matter was then submitted to the jury. Following deliberations, the jury
found appellant guilty for failure to provide notice of a change of address. Appellant now
appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review:
{¶9} THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR
GOES AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY A SHERIFF OF CHANGE OF
ADDRESS OR RESIDENCE (ON OR ABOUT MARCH 20, 2019, THROUGH AND
INCLUDING APRIL 15, 2019), A THIRD DEGREE FELONY IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
2950.05(A) AND 2950.99(A)(1)(B)(II) OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction was
-3-
Clinton CA2020-02-003
supported by insufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellant's argument is without merit.
{¶11} The concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are
legally distinct. State v. Wright, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-08-152, 2014-Ohio-985, ¶ 10.
Nonetheless, a finding that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence
is also dispositive of the issue of sufficiency. State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-
03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19. "Because sufficiency is required to take a case to the jury, a
finding that a conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence must necessarily include
a finding of sufficiency." State v. Hart, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-03-008, 2012-Ohio-
1896, ¶ 43.
{¶12} A manifest weight challenge examines the inclination of the greater amount
of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue over another. State
v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. In assessing
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court
examines the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers
the credibility of the witnesses, and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, 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. Morgan, 12th
Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-146 and CA2013-08-147, 2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34.
{¶13} Appellant was required by R.C. 2950.05(A) to provide notice to the sheriff of
the county with whom he had most recently registered his address. Pursuant to R.C.
2950.05(F)(1), "[n]o person who is required to notify a sheriff of a change of address
pursuant to [R.C. 2950.05(A)] * * * shall fail to notify the appropriate sheriff in accordance
with that division."
{¶14} Following review, we find appellant's conviction is supported by sufficient
-4-
Clinton CA2020-02-003
evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As noted above, appellant
was required to provide 20 days written notification to the Clinton County Sheriff before
moving. Nevertheless, Captain Drake testified that he was unable to verify appellant's
address or locate him at his registered address. Officer Howard confirmed that he was also
unable to make contact with appellant at his registered address. This information was
further corroborated by Floyd, as landlord and owner of Shady Oaks Campground, who
testified that appellant no longer lived at that location, sold his camper, and hadn't paid rent
since January 29, 2019. Furthermore, for purposes of establishing a precise date, Floyd
testified that appellant was not living at the camper on Lot 36 on or after March 20, 2019.
Even appellant's stepfather, admitted that appellant moved "two doors down or two doors
up." Despite this, Captain Drake testified that he never received the necessary change of
address form from appellant. As such, we find the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding
appellant guilty of failure to provide notice of change of address. The evidence
overwhelmingly pointed to appellant's guilt. As a result, appellant's sole assignment of error
is overruled.
{¶15} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-5-