State v. James

[Cite as State v. James, 2026-Ohio-3683.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25CA012308 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ONEYA JAMES COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 24CR111576 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 21, 2026 SUTTON, Judge {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Oneya James appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms. I. Relevant Background Information {¶2} This appeal arises from an incident involving fraud and theft. Mr. James was indicted on one count of telecommunications fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.05(A), a felony of the fifth degree; one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a felony of the fifth degree; one count of misuse of credit cards, in violation of R.C. 2913.21(B)(2), a misdemeanor of the first degree; and one count of petty theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), a misdemeanor of the first degree. {¶3} Mr. James pleaded not guilty to all counts in the indictment. Additionally, Mr. James waived his constitutional right to a trial by jury and elected to proceed with a bench trial.  2 After considering the testimony and evidence, the trial court found Mr. James guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Mr. James to 3 years of community control. {¶4} Mr. James appealed raising two assignments of error for our review. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. {¶5} In his first assignment of error, Mr. James argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for telecommunications fraud, receiving stolen property, misuse of credit cards, and petty theft. {¶6} Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In carrying out this review, our “function . . . 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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “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. Telecommunications Fraud {¶7} R.C. 2913.05(A) states: No person, having devised a scheme to defraud, shall knowingly disseminate, transmit, or cause to be disseminated or transmitted by means of a wire, radio, satellite, telecommunication, telecommunications device, telecommunications service, or voice over internet protocol service any writing, data, sign, signal, picture, sound, or image with purpose to execute or otherwise further the scheme to defraud.  3 “‘Defraud’ means to knowingly obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another.” State v. Boyd, 2025-Ohio-2811, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2913.01(B). {¶8} A person acts “knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” R.C. 2901.22(B). {¶9} Here, the State presented testimony and evidence from M.E., the victim of fraud, D.D., a former employee of the Avon Best Buy, Detective William Quinn with the City of Avon Police Department, and Detective Daniel Mulcahy with the City of Avon Police Department. {¶10} M.E. testified she received an email from Best Buy on March 5, 2023, indicating she had placed an order with the Avon Best Buy for a Sonos-Arc Soundbar in the amount of $958.49. M.E., however, did not order the Sonos-Arc Soundbar from Best Buy. M.E.’s Chase Freedom Card was charged for this item and M.E. called to dispute the charge with her credit card company as fraudulent. M.E. also instructed the credit card company to cancel the card with the fraudulent charge and send her a new card. {¶11} On March 6, 2023, M.E. received another email from Best Buy informing her that the Sonos-Arc Soundbar was ready for curbside pickup at the Avon Best Buy store. At that time, M.E. attempted to contact the Avon Best Buy to inform them that she had not made or authorized that purchase. M.E. could not get through to the actual store before receiving a third email that  4 the item was picked up at 10:30 a.m. M.E. reported this incident to the Avon Police Department. M.E. testified she did not know Mr. James and did not give him consent to use her credit card to purchase this item or to access her email account. {¶12} D.D., a former employee of the Avon Best Buy, testified he received and filled an electronic order for curbside pickup of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar on March 6, 2023. D.D. recalled an African American male in the driver’s seat of a monotone dark colored SUV and a passenger in the front passenger’s seat of the vehicle. D.D. explained that Best Buy generates a unique numeric code for each curbside pickup order that an employee checks to make sure the correct individual is receiving the order. When D.D. approached Mr. James’ vehicle with the order, Mr. James showed him the unique numeric code for that order on a cell phone Mr. James was holding. D.D. then placed the Sonos-Arc Soundbar in the backseat of Mr. James’ vehicle through an open window. {¶13} After M.E. reported this issue to the Avon Police Department, Detective Mulcahy testified he went to the Avon Best Buy to review the surveillance video from the exact time the item was picked up. In so doing, Detective Mulcahy identified a black Nissan Rogue. The video showed D.D. place the item in the backseat of the black Nissan Rogue after having contact at the driver’s side window. The vehicle was parked in a curbside pickup spot. After viewing the surveillance video, Detective Mulcahy then reviewed city intersection cameras with license plate readers that are located near the Avon Best Buy. {¶14} Detective Mulcahy identified a black Nissan Rogue with the license plate A-M-E- L-A travelling eastbound on Chester Road from State Route 83 at 10:28 a.m. going toward the Best Buy, then travelling southbound on State Route 83 from Chester Road at 10:33 a.m., leaving the Best Buy. Detective Mulcahy testified he used the national LEADS database to identify Mr.  5 James as the registered owner of the Black Nissan Rogue with the license plate A-M-E-L-A. After doing so, Detective Mulcahy scheduled a photo lineup with D.D., because D.D. conveyed to him that he was “pretty confident that he’d be able to identify the driver.” As part of the photo lineup, Detective Mulcahy used Mr. James’ driver’s license photo and 5 filler photos of random individuals. {¶15} Detective Quinn testified he administered the photo lineup to D.D. because he had nothing to do with the investigation and therefore had “no influence over this case whatsoever.” Detective Quinn indicated the department likes to have a “blind administrator” of photo lineups to avoid any influence on the witness or victim. D.D. selected Mr. James as the person who showed him the unique numeric code and picked up the Sonos-Arc Soundbar on March 6, 2023, with “good confidence between a 7 and an 8.” D.D. check marked “yes” for the identification of Mr. James. {¶16} In viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. James knowingly committed the crime of telecommunications fraud. M.E. did not give Mr. James consent to use her email or credit card for the purchase of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar. Mr. James arrived at the Best Buy approximately 1 hour after M.E. received an email indicating the Sonos-Arc Soundbar was ready for curbside pickup. Mr. James showed D.D. the unique numeric code for pickup of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar, that was sent to M.E., on a cell phone Mr. James was holding. D.D. placed the Sonos-Arc Soundbar in the back of Mr. James’ vehicle through an open window. Mr. James drove away with the Sonos- Arc Soundbar in his possession. {¶17} Accordingly, Mr. James’ conviction for telecommunications fraud is supported by sufficient evidence.  6 Receiving Stolen Property {¶18} R.C. 2913.51(A) states: No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense. “Receipt and retention of property implicate possession which may be either actual or constructive.” State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-3604, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Moorer, 1987 WL 12884, *1 (9th Dist. June 10, 1987). “Constructive possession exists when an individual knowingly exercises dominion and control over the object, even though the object may not be within his immediate physical possession.” Id. {¶19} As indicated above, the State presented testimony and evidence that M.E. did not authorize Mr. James to use her email and credit card for the purchase of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar from Best Buy. Mr. James arrived at the Best Buy approximately 1 hour after M.E. received an email indicating the Sonos-Arc Soundbar was ready for curbside pickup. Mr. James pulled into a curbside pickup spot and showed D.D. the unique numeric code on a cellphone he was holding to authorize pickup of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar. Footage from the Best Buy surveillance video showed D.D. placing the Sonos-Arc Soundbar in a vehicle registered to Mr. James as the owner. D.D. identified Mr. James as the driver of the vehicle. Mr. James drove away from the Best Buy with the stolen Sonos-Arc Soundbar in the backseat of his vehicle. {¶20} In viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. James committed the crime of receiving stolen property. {¶21} Accordingly, Mr. James’ conviction for receiving stolen property is supported by sufficient evidence.  7 Misuse of Credit Cards {¶22} R.C. 2913.21 states: (B) No person, with purpose to defraud, shall do any of the following: (2) Obtain property or services by the use of a credit card, in one or more transactions, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the card has expired or been revoked, or was obtained, is retained, or is being used in violation of law[.] R.C. 2901.22(A) states: “[a] person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.” Indeed, “the state was not required to demonstrate intent only through direct evidence but could establish intent through circumstantial evidence. ‘[D]irect evidence of a fact is not required, and circumstantial evidence may be more certain, satisfying, and persuasive than direct evidence. Intent can be proved from underlying facts and circumstances.’” (Citations omitted) State v. Green, 2025-Ohio-1096, ¶ 83 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29, 38 (1991). {¶23} Here, testimony and evidence proved M.E. did not authorize Mr. James to utilize her credit card or email account to purchase the Sonos-Arc Soundbar from Best Buy. M.E.’s credit card was charged $958.49 for this item which she disputed as fraudulent. Mr. James arrived at the Avon Best Buy approximately one hour after M.E. received email confirmation that the Sonos- Arc Soundbar was ready for curbside pickup. Mr. James showed D.D. the unique numeric code that was emailed to M.E. for authorization to pick up the Sonos-Arc Soundbar and drove away with the item. Mr. James held himself out to be the person who made the purchase of the Sonos- Arc Soundbar, albeit with M.E.’s credit card.  8 {¶24} In viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. James purposely defrauded M.E. by use of her credit card to purchase the Sonos-Arc Soundbar from Best Buy. {¶25} Accordingly, Mr. James’ conviction for misuse of credit cards is supported by sufficient evidence. Petty Theft {¶26} R.C. 2913.02(A) states, “No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways: . . . (3) [b]y deception[.] {¶27} This Court has stated the “purpose to deprive may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.” State v. Riley, 2010-Ohio-1350, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.); see also State v. Hoffmeier, 2018- Ohio-2553, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Warfel, 2017-Ohio-5766, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.) (“Proof of intent is often derived from circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence will seldom be available.”). {¶28} Here, the evidence supports Mr. James took possession of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar after fraudulently using M.E.’s credit card and email account to make the purchase. Mr. James deceived Best Buy when he showed D.D., a former Best Buy employee, a unique numeric code, sent to M.E., in order to take possession of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar. As such, a fact finder could reasonably infer Mr. James intended to deprive Best Buy of the Sonos-Arc Soundbar by deception when he used M.E.’s credit card and email, without consent, to show the authorization code and then knowingly took possession of the item. {¶29} In viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. James committed the crime of petty theft.  9 {¶30} Accordingly, Mr. James’ conviction for petty theft is supported by sufficient evidence. {¶31} Mr. James’ first assignment of error is overruled. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR THAT DEPRIVED [MR.] JAMES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY FINDING MR. JAMES GUILTY OF ANY OF THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE CONVICTION[S] [ARE] AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶32} In his second assignment of error, Mr. James argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mr. James, however, in making this argument, relies solely upon the argument set forth in his first assignment of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. {¶33} “[S]ufficiency and manifest weight are two separate, legally distinct arguments.” State v. Vincente-Colon, 2010-Ohio-6242, ¶ 20 (9th Dist.). Sufficiency tests the State’s burden of production while manifest weight tests its burden of persuasion. See State v. Ross, 2023-Ohio- 1185, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.). Thus, manifest weight challenges concern the reliability or believability of the State’s evidence, not its adequacy. See State v. Yatson, 2022-Ohio-2621, ¶ 69 (9th Dist.). {¶34} When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court is required to consider the entire record, “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.  10 1986). “A reversal on this basis is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” State v. Croghan, 2019-Ohio-3970, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.). {¶35} Here, Mr. James correctly articulated the legal standard for a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence. However, Mr. James did not present an independent manifest weight argument in his brief. Instead, Mr. James stated: Once again, for the reasons attached to in the brief, there is simply no evidence in the record to support that Mr. James is guilty of any of the offenses for which he is indicted. ... The law and arguments raised in [Mr. James’] First Assignment of Error regarding lack of sufficient evidence are incorporated within this Assignment of Error while also establishing same independently herein. The evidence [weighs] heavily against conviction and [Mr. James] is entitled to a new trial. {¶36} Upon review, Mr. James has not presented this Court with a manifest weight argument. We will not create one on his behalf. See State v. Austin, 2025-Ohio-4543, ¶ 40 (9th Dist.); State v. Filip, 2017-Ohio-5622, ¶ 42 (9th Dist.); see also App.R. 16(A)(7). {¶37} Mr. James’ second assignment of error is overruled. III. {¶38} For the foregoing reasons, Mr. James’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.  11 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant. BETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT HENSAL, P. J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR. APPEARANCES: KENNETH A. NELSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. ANTHONY CILLO, Prosecuting Attorney, and KIRSTEN E.R. COLLINS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.