[Cite as State v. Dirmeyer,
2014-Ohio-759.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-13-24
v.
WESLEY A. DIRMEYER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 13CR0013
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
Jonathan G. Stotzer for Appellant
Derek W. DeVine for Appellee
Case No. 13-13-24
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Wesley A. Dirmeyer, appeals the Seneca County
Court of Common Pleas’ judgment entry of conviction. We affirm.
{¶2} On January 14, 2013, Dirmeyer went uninvited to the residence of
Callie Smith—his former girlfriend, roommate, and mother of his minor
daughter—immediately following a telephone argument he had with Smith
concerning visitation. (Mar. 28, 2013 Tr. at 117, 149, 160). Dirmeyer and Smith
continued their argument on the front porch of the residence while Smith remained
behind the screen door. (Id. at 150-151, 161). After Smith told Dirmeyer to leave
and closed the front door, allegedly hitting Dirmeyer in the face, Dirmeyer
punched the door causing damage to it. (Id. at 118-120, 150-151, 162). Smith
then opened the front door to inspect the damage and told Dirmeyer that she was
reporting it to the police. (Id. at 152, 165). Dirmeyer then forced his way into the
residence and physically assaulted Smith. (Id. at 152, 162). Immediately after the
incident, Dirmeyer went to the local police department and admitted that he
physically assaulted Smith. (Id. at 121, 128-129, 141, 211); (State’s Ex. 7).
{¶3} On February 6, 2013, the Seneca County Grand Jury indicted
Dirmeyer on Count One of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C.
2911.11(A)(1), (B), a first-degree felony, and Count Two of domestic violence in
violation of R.C. 2919.25(A)(1), (D)(3), a fourth-degree felony. (Doc. No. 2).
-2-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶4} On February 28, 2013, Dirmeyer entered not guilty pleas at
arraignment. (Feb. 28, 2013 Tr. at 4). On March 29, 2013, a jury found Dirmeyer
guilty on both counts. (Doc. Nos. 27-29).
{¶5} On May 14, 2013, the trial court sentenced Dirmeyer to six years
imprisonment on Count One and 15 months imprisonment on Count Two. (May
14, 2013 Tr. at 26-27). The trial court ordered that Dirmeyer serve the terms
consecutively for an aggregate sentence of seven years and three months. (Id.).
On May 20, 2013, the trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence. (Doc. No.
32).
{¶6} On June 18, 2013, Dirmeyer filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 37).
Dirmeyer appeals raising two assignments of error. Because Dirmeyer’s
assignments of error raise related issues, we combine them for analysis.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court erred in including in the jury instructions “one
can commit a trespass and a burglary against property of which
one is the legal owner if another has control or custody of that
property.”
Assignment of Error No. II
The trial court erred in denying the defenses [sic] Criminal Rule
29 motion for directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds that
the required element of trespass was not established prima facie
according to law and the aggravated burglary charge must be
dismissed.
-3-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Dirmeyer argues that the trial court
erred by instructing the jury that one could commit a trespass even if one was the
legal owner of the property where another has control or custody of that property.
Dirmeyer argues that he could not trespass as that term is defined in R.C. 2911.21
because he signed the lease agreement with Smith and was a cotenant. Dirmeyer
argues that his moving out, surrendering his key, and expressing his desire to be
removed from the lease does not change his legal right to possession as a cotenant
under the still-valid lease.
{¶8} In his second assignment of error, Dirmeyer argues that the trial court
erred by denying his Crim.R. 29(A) motion, because the State failed to prove he
committed a criminal trespass as defined in R.C. 2911.11, an element of his
aggravated burglary conviction. Again, Dirmeyer argues that he did not trespass
in the residence because he was a cotenant with an equal right of possession.
{¶9} Whether jury instructions correctly stated the applicable law is
reviewed on appeal de novo. State v. Brown, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA3, 2009-
Ohio-5390, ¶ 34; Schnipke v. Safe-Turf Installation Group, L.L.C., 190 Ohio
App.3d 89,
2010-Ohio-4173, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.).
{¶10} “Pursuant to Crim. R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of
judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach
different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been
-4-
Case No. 13-13-24
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261
(1978), syllabus. A Crim.R. 29(A) motion is governed by the same standard as the
one for determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. See
State v. Tenace,
109 Ohio St.3d 255,
2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37.
{¶11} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259
(1981), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶12} The evidence in this case established that Dirmeyer was Smith’s
former live-in boyfriend and the father of one of Smith’s minor daughters. (Mar.
28, 2013 Tr. at 111, 115, 132, 143-144, 183-184, 202). Dirmeyer lived with Smith
at the residence in question about a year and a half but moved out on June 28,
2012. (Id. at 144, 156, 186). Dirmeyer and Smith both signed a lease for the
residence. (Id. at 205). When they lived together, Dirmeyer and Smith paid bills
from a joint checking account; however, Smith terminated the account a few
months after Dirmeyer vacated the residence. (Id. at 204, 214).
{¶13} When Dirmeyer moved out, he loaded his belongings into a Budget
truck, leaving behind only two televisions and a mirror, which he picked up off the
front porch at a later date, according to Smith. (Id. at 145, 196-197). Dirmeyer
-5-
Case No. 13-13-24
indicated that he had left a beanbag chair at the residence; however, Smith testified
that Dirmeyer had originally told her she could keep it for her son. (Id. at 145-
146). Since Dirmeyer left, Smith has paid the full amount of rent and all of the
utilities, Dirmeyer surrendered his key, and Smith changed the locks in October
2012. (Id. at 147-148). Since June 2012, Dirmeyer has been to the residence only
three times and only when Smith was present, and he never spent the night. (Id. at
148).
{¶14} Dirmeyer testified that he asked Smith to remove his name from the
lease after he vacated. (Id. at 206, 215). Smith asked the landlord to remove
Dirmeyer’s name from the lease, but the landlord refused, because the landlord
could not inspect the property for damages. (Id. at 147, 158). According to Smith,
Dirmeyer did not have any clothing in the residence after he vacated. (Id. at 158).
Dirmeyer, on the other hand, testified that he left a crib, a beanbag chair, a couple
gas cans, a mirror, two televisions, and his older daughter’s (not Smith and
Dirmeyer’s daughter) clothes and toys at the residence. (Id. at 207, 215).
Dirmeyer lived with his mother until November 2012 when he moved into an
apartment on Walker Street. (Id. at 165, 171, 188, 192, 196, 202). Dirmeyer
admitted that he had not lived with Smith for the past six to eight months, and that
he had received his mirror a couple days prior to the incident. (Id. at 213, 216).
-6-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶15} Based on this evidence, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent
part: “[o]ne can commit a trespass and a burglary against property of which he is
the legal owner if another has control or custody of that property.” (Id. at 248).
The trial court stated that this instruction was based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s
decision in State v. Lilly, in which the Court concluded:
[T]he purpose of burglary law is to protect the dweller, we hold that
custody and control, rather than legal title, is dispositive. See R.C.
2911.21(E), providing that “‘land or premises’ includes any land,
building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in
custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion
thereof.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, in Ohio, one can commit a
trespass and burglary against property of which one is the legal
owner if another has control or custody of that property.
87 Ohio St.3d 97, 102 (1999); (Mar. 28, 2013 Tr. at 230).
{¶16} Despite the fact that the trial court’s jury instruction was taken
verbatim from State v. Lilly, Dirmeyer argues that this case is distinguishable,
because Lilly involved spousal rights and Smith and he were never married, and,
more importantly, the husband in Lilly was not a cotenant under the lease
agreement like him. While these observations are true, we are not persuaded that
the trial court erred by instructing the jury based upon the rule in Lilly.
-7-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶17} First, the holding in Lilly was not limited to husbands and wives.
Second, the fact that the husband in Lilly was not a party to the lease was but one
factor the Court applied—it also noted that the husband in Lilly did not live at the
apartment, did not have a key, and did not have any belongings in the apartment.
87 Ohio St.3d at 103. Third, the Court of Appeals has applied Lilly to
relationships other than husband-wife and where the defendant was a cotenant
under the lease agreement. State v. Nelson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2002-A-
0019,
2003-Ohio-5699, ¶ 21-24 (former boyfriend could be convicted of burglary
even if he was on the lease agreement where the victim had custody and control of
the apartment in question); State v. Hinojosa, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-05-
104,
2004-Ohio-1192, ¶ 14-17 (former boyfriend could be convicted of burglary
even if his name was on the lease, because he moved out of the apartment
relinquishing custody and control of the apartment to his former girlfriend). See
also State v. Pickens, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-07-30,
2008-Ohio-1140, ¶ 18
(former live-in boyfriend could be found guilty of burglary even though he used to
live in the apartment and had access to the apartment through the garage and even
though the apartment door was unlocked when he entered to commit the crime)
(citing
Lilly, supra). In light of the foregoing authorities and the evidence
presented relevant to this issue, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in
instructing the jury based on Lilly.
-8-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶18} The trial court also did not err by denying Dirmeyer’s Crim.R. 29(A)
motion based on the fact that he was a cotenant under the lease agreement.
“Because the purpose of burglary law is to protect the dweller, … custody and
control, rather than legal title, is dispositive.” Lilly, 87 Ohio St.3d at 102. There
was ample evidence to demonstrate that Smith had sole possessory interest in the
residence. See State v. O’Neal,
103 Ohio App.3d 151, 155 (1st Dist.1995). Once
the relationship ended, Dirmeyer vacated the residence on June 28, 2012—the
incident in this case occurred on January 14, 2013, almost six months later. After
he left, Dirmeyer removed his belongings (except a few disputed items), left his
key, and returned to the residence only three times and only when Smith was
present. Smith paid the full rent and all of the utilities at the residence after
Dirmeyer vacated. In October 2012, Smith changed the locks, and a few months
after Dirmeyer left, she terminated their joint checking account. When Dirmeyer
turned himself in to law enforcement, he stated that he lived at the Walker Street
address—the address of the apartment Dirmeyer obtained in November 2012.
(State’s Ex. 7). Under these facts and circumstances, a reasonable juror could
have determined that Smith had a sole possessory interest in the residence, and
therefore, that Dirmeyer trespassed when he entered the residence on January 14,
2013 for the purpose of committing domestic violence, and was therefore guilty of
aggravated burglary.
-9-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶19} Dirmeyer’s first and second assignments of error are, therefore,
overruled.
{¶20} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., concurs.
ROGERS, J., DISSENTS.
{¶21} I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.
{¶22} With respect to the first assignment of error, I would agree that the
instruction given by the trial court could be correct in certain circumstances, such
as where the title owner of property is a lessor but a tenant has a contractual right
to possession and/or control of the property. However, I would find the
instruction to have been improper under the circumstances of this case because
Dirmeyer and Smith had equal legal rights to possession and control of the subject
property by virtue of a valid written lease.
{¶23} As to the second assignment of error, the majority relies on the dicta
of State v. Lilly, 87 Ohio St.3d 97 (1999). Dirmeyer is correct that the
circumstances in Lilly are distinguishable from this case. In Lilly, the defendant
had no interest whatsoever in any rental or lease agreement that would allow him
-10-
Case No. 13-13-24
access to the property. Id. at 103. The defendant in Lilly was relying solely on his
claim of marital access to the dwelling of his spouse created by statute.
Id. at 100.
However, a spouse that has residual legal rights to the marital home cannot be a
trespasser. State v. Conner,
192 Ohio App.3d 166,
2011-Ohio-146, ¶ 26-28 (6th
Dist.). In Conner, divorce proceedings had been initiated and an ex parte civil
protection order had been granted to the wife against the husband. Id. at ¶ 27. The
order stated that the wife had exclusive use of the marital home. Id. However, on
appeal, the court found that, without the safeguard of a due process hearing
excluding the husband from the premises, the husband “still had residual rights in
the marital home and property within it[.]” Id. at ¶ 26-27. The court distinguished
Lilly, where the estranged husband never obtained any legal rights to be in the
wife’s residence. Id. at ¶ 22. Nothing terminated the rights the husband had
acquired in the marital home, nor, as the court stated, was the defendant on notice
that he was not allowed in the home:
[N]othing in the record indicates that appellant had actual notice that
his presence in the marital home could constitute a criminal offense.
No civil protection order or temporary restraining order existed that
would have unequivocally provided notice to appellant of the
possible consequences of entering the property or potential criminal
penalties.
Id. at ¶ 28. As a result, the court found that the defendant could not have been a
trespasser in the home. Id.; see also O’Neal v. Bagley, --- F.3d --- (6th Cir. 2013)
(stating that being a tenant is “suggestive of an unqualified privilege to enter”).
-11-
Case No. 13-13-24
{¶24} Here, as in Connor, Dirmeyer maintained residual rights in the
property. Without notice that he was not allowed on the property or other
restrictions, he did not lose these rights. Further, Dirmeyer continued to have a
legal responsibility for rents and maintenance of the property. It is illogical to
hold one responsible for liabilities on a lease, but deny that same individual his or
her right of access to the same property. To the extent that the majority interprets
the reference in Lilly to R.C. 2911.21(F)(2) which defines “land or premises” as
denying Dirmeyer a right of access, I would disagree. That issue was not before
the court in Lilly, and I feel it is improper to try to extend the holding in Lilly to
the circumstances of this case. Further, if the Supreme Court intended the result
reached by the majority here, I would suggest that the Supreme Court was
improperly reading into the statute language that does not exist.
{¶25} R.C. 2901.04(A) requires that criminal statutes “shall be strictly
construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.”
{¶26} Further:
It is well accepted that the cornerstone of statutory construction and
interpretation is legislative intention. In order to determine
legislative intent it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a
court must first look to the language of the statute itself. ‘If the
meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, it must be
applied as written and no further interpretation is necessary.’
Moreover, it is well settled that to determine the intent of the
General Assembly ‘it is the duty of this court to give effect to the
words used [in a statute], not to delete words used or to insert words
not used.’
-12-
Case No. 13-13-24
(Emphasis sic.) (Citations omitted.) State v. Jordan , 89 Ohio St.3d 488, 492
(2000). To be convicted of trespass, someone must, without privilege, enter the
“land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of
another ….” R.C. 2911.21(A)(1), (F)(2) As the apartment, by law, still
belonged to Dirmeyer, he could not trespass on that land.
{¶27} Therefore, I would sustain both assignments of error and reverse
Appellant’s conviction for the offense of aggravated burglary.
/jlr
-13-
