State v. Bergstresser , 2024 Ohio 3299 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Bergstresser, 2024-Ohio-3299.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 113269
v. :
DANIEL BERGSTRESSER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART
AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 29, 2024
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-664605-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and James D. May, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Noelle A. Powell-Sacks, Assistant Public Defender, for
appellant.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant Daniel Bergstresser (“Bergstresser”) appeals
from his convictions and sentence for various theft offenses following a jury trial.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
On October 26, 2021, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted
Bergstresser on one count of telecommunications fraud in violation of R.C.
2913.05(A) with a furthermore clause; one count of theft in office in violation of R.C.
2921.41(A)(1) with a furthermore clause; one count of theft in office in violation of
R.C. 2921.41(A)(2) with a furthermore clause; one count of unauthorized use of
property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(B); and one count of grand theft in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). According to the indictment, the property alleged to have been
stolen was “$7,500 or more and was less than $150,000.” Bergstresser initially
pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the case proceeded to a jury trial on August 15,
2023.
At trial, the State called Rachael Bohnett (“Bohnett”), who testified
that she worked at MetroHealth in Cleveland, Ohio, as an operating room materials
coordinator. Bohnett testified that she was responsible for ordering medical
supplies for MetroHealth and explained how the internal and external supply chain
operated. Bohnett testified that she worked with Bergstresser, who was also
employed as a purchaser, although Bergstresser worked in the heart and vascular
unit.
Bohnett testified that on August 10, 2021, near the end of
Bergstresser’s employment with MetroHealth, he called in sick, and Bohnett was
tasked with covering for him. While doing so, Bohnett testified that she went to the
receiving dock to pick up two packages that Bergstresser had ordered. Bohnett
testified that according to the packing slips, the packages contained gold eye
weights. She further testified that this was unusual, because Bergstresser’s
department — heart and vascular — did not use gold eye weights. Bohnett testified
that she was shocked to see these packages and took the information to her and
Bergstresser’s supervisor, Donna Barr (“Barr”).
Barr testified that she worked at MetroHealth as the manager of
surgical supplies. In this role, she oversaw a staff of 13, including Bohnett and
Bergstresser. Barr testified that she usually wore scrubs to work, and her staff
always wore scrubs to work. Barr testified that in 2021, Bergstresser was assigned
to the heart and vascular unit. Barr described that staff could order supplies either
by scanning a bar code or by inputting the information manually into MetroHealth’s
ordering system. Barr testified that Bergstresser called in sick on August 10, 2021,
stating that he had an injured foot that he could not walk on, and Barr assigned
Bohnett to cover for him.
Barr testified that on August 10, 2021, she went through
Bergstresser’s requisitions to see if there was a purchase order for a specific product
because she was concerned that it had not been received. Barr testified that while
going through Bergstresser’s records, she saw a purchase order for gold eye weights.
Barr testified that this was unusual because gold eye weights are not used in the
heart and vascular unit. Barr testified that she went on to see if Bergstresser had
placed similar orders in the past and discovered that multiple additional gold
weights had been ordered; Barr described this as very unusual and testified that “it
set a flag off.” Barr testified that she also discovered that the dates on the orders had
been changed to 2023, two years in the future; this would have been done manually,
and this change would have made it difficult for someone to notice the irregular
orders if they were not specifically looking for them. Barr testified that the cost
centers were also changed on the orders from heart and vascular to other cost
centers; this change also would have been made manually. Further, Barr testified
that Bergstresser had signed the delivery tickets for the earlier orders for packages
containing gold eye weights.
Barr testified that because gold is a commodity, the invoices for the
gold eye weights included a variable surcharge that changed based on how much the
price of gold had changed. Barr testified that the total amount of the gold weights
that had been ordered was $17,656 presurcharge, and the total of the surcharge was
approximately $1,000.
Barr also corroborated Bohnett’s testimony, explaining that Bohnett
came to Barr when she was covering for Bergstresser and informed Barr that she
had just picked up gold weights that Bergstresser had ordered and shipped
overnight.
Barr testified that based on the foregoing, she got in touch with
MetroHealth human resources and Cleveland police. Based on advice from police
detectives and human resources, Barr reached out to Bergstresser and instructed
him to come directly to her office the next morning, but Bergstresser blocked her
phone number, the two did not have any further communications, and Bergstresser
never returned to work.
Barr went on to testify that additional investigations into
Bergstresser’s past orders revealed that he had ordered a NovaSure, a device used in
gynecological surgery. Barr testified that, like the gold eye weights, the NovaSure
was not something that would ever be needed by the heart and vascular unit.
Further, the device had a gold tip. Ultimately, Barr testified that between April and
August 2021, 26 orders for gold eye weights had been placed by Bergstresser.
The State called Samantha Oman (“Oman”), who testified that in
August 2021 she was employed as a surgical supervisor for materials management
at MetroHealth. In this position, Oman worked under Barr and supervised a team
of eight to 12 people, including Bergstresser. Oman testified that in September 2021,
when she was cleaning out the receiving room adjacent to Bergstresser’s workspace,
she discovered empty packaging from gold eye weights.
The State called Gregory Kirby (“Kirby”), who in August 2021 was
employed as a shipping and receiving clerk at MetroHealth. Kirby testified that he
would see Bergstresser about once a day when Bergstresser would pick up his
packages early in the morning. Kirby testified that on August 11, 2021, the day after
Barr discovered that Bergstresser had been ordering gold eye weights, Kirby saw
Bergstresser coming in the back door of the receiving dock shortly after 8 a.m. Kirby
testified that Bergstresser was wearing a black t-shirt, shorts, and a backwards
baseball cap, which was unusual because Bergstresser typically wore scrubs to work.
Kirby testified that they said good morning to each other, and Bergstresser appeared
to be walking normally. The State introduced a still image from MetroHealth’s
surveillance footage of the receiving dock, depicting a man dressed as described
above, and Kirby testified that the man in the image appeared to be Bergstresser.
The State also called Jordan Tipton (“Tipton”), who testified that in
August 2021 he worked in the receiving dock at MetroHealth’s main campus with
Kirby. Tipton testified that he worked with Bergstresser because Tipton was
responsible for delivering supplies to one of the areas where Bergstresser worked.
Tipton testified that in August 2021, he received a text message from Bergstresser
asking Tipton not to bring up packages after 11:30 a.m. because Bergstresser would
personally pick them up; Tipton testified that this was somewhat unusual.
The State called Detective Christopher Mealey (“Detective Mealey”),
who testified that he was a detective assigned to MetroHealth in 2021. Detective
Mealey testified that prior to the incidents described above, he knew Bergstresser
from seeing him around the MetroHealth main campus, and in August 2021 he was
assigned to investigate this matter. As part of his investigation, Detective Mealey
met with Barr about the package of gold eye weights that Bohnett received for
Bergstresser. Detective Mealey testified that he also spoke to Bohnett, Oman, Kirby,
and Tipton. Detective Mealey also reviewed the surveillance footage from the
receiving dock and the text messages between Bergstresser and Barr.
At the close of the State’s case, Bergstresser’s counsel made a Crim.R.
29 motion. The court denied this motion. Bergstresser did not call any witnesses or
present any other evidence and renewed the Crim.R. 29 motion, which the court
again denied.
On August 17, 2023, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
The court referred Bergstresser to the probation department for a presentence
investigation (“PSI”). On September 14, 2023, the court held a sentencing hearing.
The assistant prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, and Bergstresser addressed the
court. Ultimately, the court sentenced Bergstresser to nine months in prison on each
count, to be served concurrently. The court also ordered Bergstresser to pay $18,470
in restitution to MetroHealth. Defense counsel objected to the ordered restitution
amount, and the court overruled the objection. At the conclusion of the sentencing
hearing, the court stated:
And, by the way, if he’s released on an F3 from a state penal institution,
he could be on Post Release Control of anywhere of one to three years.
In the corresponding sentencing journal entry, the court stated:
Pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(F)(4)(C), the defendant will be subject to a
period of post-release control of: a mandatory minimum 1 year, up to a
maximum of 3 years. The adult parole authority will administer the
post-release control pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, and the defendant has
been notified that if he violates post-release control, the parole board
may impose a prison term as part of the sentence of up to half of the
stated prison term or stated minimum term originally imposed upon
the defendant in nine-month increments. If while on post-release
control the defendant is convicted of a new felony, the sentencing court
will have authority to terminate the post-release control and order a
consecutive prison term of up to the greater of twelve months or the
remaining period of post-release control.
On October 16, 2023, Bergstresser filed a timely notice of appeal.
The briefing in this appeal was completed on May 2, 2024. On June
6, 2024, Bergstresser’s appellate counsel filed a notice of Bergstresser’s death;
Bergstresser passed away on May 23, 2024.
On June 21, 2024, Bergstresser’s appellate counsel filed a motion to
waive oral argument, which this court granted. On June 26, 2024, the State filed a
motion for substitution of party due to death of appellant pursuant to App.R.
29(A)(“the substitution motion”). On July 1, 2024, Bergstresser’s appellate counsel
filed a brief in opposition to the State’s substitution motion. On July 10, 2024, this
court granted the State’s substitution motion and substituted Bergstresser’s counsel
of record as a party, pursuant to State v. Grossman, 2024-Ohio-2363, ¶ 17 (8th
Dist.), citing State v. McGettrick, 31 Ohio St.3d 138, 139 (1987).
In McGettrick, the Ohio Supreme Court sought to balance the
interests of both criminal defendants and the citizens of the State of Ohio. In holding
that App.R. 29(A) provides that a party may make a motion for substitution of a
party when an appellant dies while their direct appeal is pending, the Ohio Supreme
Court noted that “[i]t is in the interest of the defendant, the defendant’s estate and
society that any challenge initiated by a defendant to the regularity of a criminal
proceeding be fully reviewed and decided by the appellate process.” McGettrick at
141, citing Commonwealth v. Walker, 447 Pa. 146, 148 (1972), and State v. Jones,
220 Kan. 136 (1976). Thus, to the extent that Bergstresser’s arguments in the instant
appeal are not mooted by his death, as further discussed below, we will address them
on their merits.
Bergstresser presents four assignments of error for our review:
I. Mr. Bergstresser’s convictions are based on evidence that is
insufficient to prove all necessary elements of the offenses beyond
reasonable doubt.
II. The trial court erred when it failed to hold a statutorily mandated
evidentiary restitution hearing when Mr. Bergstresser’s counsel
objected to the restitution amount ordered at sentencing.
III. The trial court erred when it failed to merge all or some of the
counts of which Mr. Bergstresser was convicted.
IV. The trial court erred in sentencing Mr. Bergstresser to one- to three-
years post-release control without the proper advisements and it erred
in its sentencing journal entry which erroneously states [that] Mr.
Bergstresser’s post-release control is mandatory.
Law and Analysis
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In Bergstresser’s first assignment of error, he argues that his
convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Bergstresser
argues that the State did not prove that Bergstresser stole the medical supplies, it
merely presented evidence that someone using Bergstresser’s identification number
ordered gold eye weights. Bergstresser argues that his convictions were improperly
based on stacked inferences.
An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction is “to examine the evidence admitted at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Noah, 2022-
Ohio-1315, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Murphy, 2001-Ohio-112, 543. “‘The
relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State v. Walker, 2016-
Ohio-829, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of
the syllabus. Essentially, the test for sufficiency requires determining whether the
prosecution met its burden of production at trial. Id., citing State v. Bowden, 2009-
Ohio-3598, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).
Each of the offenses of which Bergstresser was convicted involved
theft. Count 1, telecommunications fraud, alleged that Bergstresser, in violation of
R.C. 2913.05(A),
having devised a scheme to defraud, did knowingly disseminate,
transmit, or cause to disseminated or transmitted by means of wire,
radio, satellite, telecommunication, telecommunications device, or
telecommunications services any writing, data, sign, signal, picture,
sound, image with purpose to execute or otherwise further the scheme
to defraud.
Count 1 also included a furthermore clause that Bergstresser committed a violation
of division (A) of Section 2913.05 of the Revised Code, and this violation occurred
as part of a course of conduct involving other violations of division (A) of Section
2913.05 of the Revised Code, or violations of section 2913.02, 2913.04, 2913.11,
2913.21, 2913.31, 2913.42, 2913.43, or 2921.13 of the Revised Code, and the value of
the benefit obtained by the offender or of the detriment to the victim of fraud is seven
thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty thousand
dollars.
Count 2, theft in office in violation of R.C. 2921.41(A)(1), alleged that
Bergstresser did,
while being a public or party official, commit a theft offense, as defined
in division (K) of section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, when the
offender used the offender’s office in aid of committing the offense or
permitted or assented to its use in aid of committing the offense and
the value of property or services stolen was [between $7,500 and
$150,000.]
Count 3, theft in office in violation of R.C. 2921.41(A)(2), alleged that
Bergstresser did,
while being a public or party official, commit a theft offense, as defined
in division (K) of section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, when the
property or service involved is owned by this state, any other state, the
United States, a county, a municipal corporation, a township, or any
political subdivision, department, or agency of any of them, or is owned
by a political party, or is part of a political campaign fund and the value
of property or services stolen was [between $7,500 and $150,000.]
Count 4, unauthorized use of property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(B),
alleged that Bergstresser did,
in any manner and by any means, including but not limited to,
computer hacking, knowingly gain access to, attempt to gain access to,
or cause access to be gained to any computer, computer system,
computer network, cable service, cable system, telecommunications
device, telecommunications service, or information service without the
consent of, or beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of,
the owner of the computer, computer system, cable service, cable
system, telecommunications device, telecommunications service, or
information service or other person authorized to give consent and
unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunications property
is committed for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to
defraud or to obtain property or services, for obtaining money,
property, or services by false of fraudulent pretenses, or for committing
any other criminal offense and the value of the property or services
involved or the loss to the victim is [between $7,500 and $150,000.]
Finally, Count 5, grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3),
alleged that Bergstresser
did with purpose to deprive the owner, MetroHealth Medical Center, of
gold eyelid implant weights and/or Olympus plasma loops and/or
Novasure device kits and/or Myosure Reach tissue removal kits or
services, knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or
services by deception and the property or services stolen is valued at
[between $7,500 and $150,000.]
Here, the evidence presented established that Bergstresser used his
position as a purchaser for MetroHealth, a county hospital, to order valuable
medical supplies that were not needed for his unit. While Bergstresser argues that
the State did not show that Bergstresser ever possessed the gold eye weights in
question, this is not strictly necessary for any of the aforementioned offenses. It is
sufficient that Bergstresser’s unique identification number was employed to order
the supplies through MetroHealth’s ordering system and his name and signature
appeared on the delivery tickets. Additional evidence, including the fact that the
orders were made with manually manipulated dates and cost centers, and
Bergstresser’s attempts to intercept packages from his coworkers, further supports
the jury’s guilty verdicts.
Bergstresser also argues that the State did not present sufficient
evidence that MetroHealth was actually deprived of the property in question
because with the exception of the package intercepted by Bohnett, the gold eye
weights were never located, and no evidence was presented that MetroHealth
actually paid for the supplies. We reiterate that it is not necessary for any of the
aforementioned offenses that the property be located or possessed by Bergstresser.
Further, ample evidence was introduced regarding MetroHealth’s supply chain, and
based on this evidence, the act of ordering and receiving medical supplies on behalf
of MetroHealth is sufficient to show that MetroHealth paid for the supplies.
Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any
rational trier of fact could have found the elements of Bergstresser’s offenses proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we overrule Bergstresser’s first assignment
of error.
II. Restitution Hearing
In Bergstresser’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial
court erred when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on restitution, because it
was statutorily required to do so when Bergstresser’s counsel objected to the amount
of restitution at the sentencing hearing. Bergstresser argues that if a party disputes
the restitution amount, the court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing.
As an initial matter, we note that the Ohio Supreme Court has
recognized that in some cases, the estate of a convicted criminal who dies before his
direct appeal is finished may have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the appeal
due to the estate’s potential liability for financial sanctions or costs imposed on the
defendant. McGettrick, 31 Ohio St.3d at 141. Therefore, Bergstresser’s second
assignment of error, despite challenging an aspect of his sentence, is not moot
despite the fact that he died while this appeal was pending.
R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides for restitution by the offender to the
victim or the victim’s estate, and provides in relevant part:
In open court, the court shall order that full restitution be made to the
victim, to the adult probation department that serves the county on
behalf of the victim, to the clerk of courts, or to another agency
designated by the court. At sentencing, the court shall determine the
amount of restitution to be made by the offender. The victim, the
victim’s representative, the victim’s attorney, if applicable, the
prosecutor or the prosecutor’s designee, and the offender may provide
information relevant to the determination of the amount of restitution.
The amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the amount
of the economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate
result of the commission of the offense….The court shall hold a hearing
on restitution if the offender, victim, victim’s representative, or victim’s
estate disputes the amount. The court shall determine the amount of
full restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
The State contends that because Bergstresser did not actually object
to the amount of restitution ordered, the court was not required to hold a hearing.
The following exchange took place at sentencing:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor….I would also just like to note for
the record an objection to the ordered restitution amount.
THE COURT: What’s the objection?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, at trial I know that the State of
Ohio presented invoices from the various gold eye weight plate
implants.
We didn’t see anything from their accounts receivable or anything to
show that they actually paid for those items, and so that would be the
basis for our objection.
I don’t object to how it was calculated based on the invoices and the
surcharge of the gold, but I don’t think they demonstrated an actual lost
amount.
We haven’t seen anything in that regard, so I would note an objection
for the record.
While the State is correct that trial counsel did not object to how the
amount of restitution was calculated, it did object to the amount of economic loss
suffered by the victim, MetroHealth. Further, if the State were able to produce
evidence showing a higher or lower economic loss incurred by MetroHealth, this
would change the amount of restitution ordered by the court. Therefore, because
Bergstresser objected to the amount of restitution ordered, the court was required
to hold an evidentiary hearing. State v. Davis, 2023-Ohio-3064, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.).
Bergstresser’s second assignment of error is sustained, and the case is remanded for
the court to hold a hearing on restitution.
III. Merger
In Bergstresser’s third assignment of error, he argues that the trial
court erred in failing to merge all or some of the counts for which Bergstresser was
convicted. Specifically, Bergstresser argues that because all five offenses stem from
the same action — the theft of gold eye weights — the offenses should have merged.
Generally, we review de novo whether certain offenses should be
merged as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25. State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 6,
citing State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 1. However, because Bergstresser failed
to preserve the issue of merger at trial by objecting, we review the issue for plain
error. Id., citing State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 28 (“The failure to raise the
allied offense issue at the time of sentencing forfeits all but plain error.”).
Under the plain-error doctrine, intervention by a reviewing court is
warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice. Id., citing
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus (“Notice of
plain error . . . is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional
circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”). To prevail under plain
error, Bergstresser must establish that “‘an error occurred, that the error was
obvious, and that there is “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in
prejudice,” meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.’” Id. at ¶ 8,
quoting State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66, quoting Rogers at ¶ 22 (emphasis
added in Rogers).
R.C. 2941.25(A) prohibits multiple convictions for allied offenses of
similar import. Courts apply a three-part test under R.C. 2941.25 to determine
whether a defendant can be convicted of multiple offenses:
As a practical matter, when determining whether offenses are allied
offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25, courts
must ask three questions when defendant’s conduct supports multiple
offenses: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2)
Were they committed separately? And (3) Were they committed with
separate animus or motivation? An affirmative answer to any of the
above will permit separate convictions. The conduct, the animus, and
the import must all be considered.
Bailey at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Earley, 2015-Ohio-4615, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Ruff,
2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 31.
While Bergstresser is correct that each of his five offenses is
predicated on the theft of medical supplies, it was not plain error for the court to
sentence Bergstresser separately for each offense. Specifically, while the harm done
by Count 5, grand theft, was the deprivation of property from MetroHealth, the
harm done by other offenses included Bergstresser’s abuse of his position at a public
hospital and his misuse of MetroHealth’s ordering system. Therefore, we cannot
conclude that it was plain error for the court to decline to merge some or all of
Bergstresser’s offenses. Bergstresser’s third assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Postrelease Control
In Bergstresser’s fourth and final assignment of error, he argues that
the trial court erred when it sentenced him to postrelease control without first
making the proper advisements. While, as discussed above, this court granted the
State’s substitution motion and proceeded with the appeal following Bergstresser’s
death, we decline to consider Bergstresser’s fourth assignment of error.
Bergstresser has died and therefore is no longer subject to punishment or deterrence
through the criminal justice system. State v. Matthews, 2019-Ohio-3018, ¶ 11, fn. 2
(6th Dist.), citing State v. Cupp, 2018-Ohio-5211, ¶ 29. Further, Crim.R. 43 provides
that a defendant must be physically present at every stage of the criminal proceeding
and trial. Therefore, the trial court’s alleged failure to properly advise Bergstresser
of postrelease control in this case is moot.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
limited proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR