[Cite as State v. Wallace,
2023-Ohio-1524.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-08-021
: OPINION
- vs - 5/8/2023
:
JASON ALLEN WALLACE, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 21-500-104
Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert C. Logsdon, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
The Law Office of John D. Hill, LLC, and John D. Hill, Jr., for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Jason Allen Wallace, appeals from his conviction in the Clinton
County Court of Common Pleas for receiving stolen property. For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm his conviction.
{¶2} On April 7, 2021, Douglas Eastes, a lieutenant with the Clinton County
Sheriff's Office, received an anonymous phone tip that a stolen utility truck, possibly a DP&L
Clinton CA2022-08-021
truck, was being stored at Wallace's residence on State Route 350 in Cuba, Clinton County,
Ohio. The anonymous caller informed Lt. Eastes that Wallace and Michael King were
"parting out" the truck and that one of the parts had been sold or given to an individual in
Greenfield, Ohio. Lt. Eastes looked at stolen vehicle reports. Though he did not find a
report of a stolen DP&L truck, he did find a report arising out of Highland County concerning
a stolen Ford F-450 utility truck belonging to Aaron Baldwin.
{¶3} Lt. Eastes and another officer went to Wallace's residence to look into the
matter. When they drove up to the property, they saw a Ford F-250 pickup truck ("F-250")
parked in the driveway. They also saw that the sliding door to a detached three-bay garage
was open. Wallace exited the garage through the sliding door before closing it. Lt. Eastes
approached Wallace and informed him of the report of a stolen utility truck. Wallace denied
there was a stolen vehicle in his garage, stating that the only two vehicles in the garage
were his own pickup truck and a car that belonged to a friend. When Lt. Eastes asked for
permission to enter the garage, Wallace refused the lieutenant access.
{¶4} Lt. Eastes spoke with Paul Conger, who was renting the house on Wallace's
property. Conger advised Lt. Eastes that he did not have access to the garage. While
speaking with Conger, Lt. Eastes observed a second door to the garage, which was located
on the opposite side of the building. The door was standing wide-open. Through the open
door, Lt. Eastes observed a utility truck. When he informed Wallace that he could see a
utility truck, Wallace acted surprised and stated he had not noticed the vehicle when he was
in the garage moments earlier. Lt. Eastes again asked Wallace for permission to enter the
garage, and this time, Wallace consented. Wallace entered the garage with Lt. Eastes.
{¶5} From the natural light that came through the open door, Lt. Eastes was able
to observe three vehicles inside the garage: a car, a smaller pick-up truck, and a large,
heavy-duty utility pickup truck ("utility truck"). According to Lt. Eastes, there was no way
-2-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
Wallace would not have seen the utility truck when he was in the garage, as the garage
was an open space, not separated by walls. Though there was enough natural light to see
what was inside the garage, there was not enough light to see the small letters comprising
the utility truck's vehicle identification number (VIN). Lt. Eastes asked for the building's
lights to be turned on. Wallace claimed there were no lights in the garage. Conger,
however, was able to plug in lights to illuminate the garage.
{¶6} Lt. Eastes commented to Wallace that since Wallace had never seen the utility
truck, there would be no reason for his fingerprints to be found anywhere on the vehicle.
Wallace then began to touch the utility truck and started opening up toolboxes and other
items on the truck. He did so despite Lt. Eastes orders to stop touching the vehicle. Wallace
was eventually removed from the garage.
{¶7} Lt. Eastes examined the utility truck, noticing that the VIN plate on the utility
truck had been tampered with and the rocker panel on the driver's side door, which holds a
secondary VIN, had been cut off. The utility truck's registration paperwork was inside the
truck. The registration paperwork had a license plate number different from the license
plate that was physically attached to the utility truck. Lt. Eastes ran the license plate number
from the registration paperwork, and it came back as the vehicle Baldwin had reported
stolen. The number from the license plate that was physically attached to the utility truck
was also run, and it came back as being registered to an F-250 owned by Tamara Grey,
who Lt. Eastes knew was King's girlfriend. The F-250 to which the license plate was
registered was parked in the driveway outside Wallace's garage. The VIN plate for the F-
250 parked in the driveway had been removed and the rocker panel had also been cut off.
The utility truck and the F-250 were secured into evidence and transported back to the
sheriff's office.
{¶8} Lt. Eastes then went to discuss what he had found with Wallace. However,
-3-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
he was advised by Conger that Wallace had left the premises on foot. Wallace was tracked
down and brought back to his garage by another officer. Wallace told Lt. Eastes that he
had left the premises because he had to use the restroom and he wanted to get himself an
ice cream cone. Lt. Eastes advised Wallace of his Miranda rights and questioned him about
the utility truck. Wallace denied any knowledge of the utility truck, stating he "didn't know it
was in there, [and] had no information that he could add at that time." At no point in time
during any interaction Lt. Eastes had with Wallace did Wallace claim that the garage was
rented to Conger or that Conger had exclusive control over the garage or its contents.
{¶9} Wallace was ultimately indicted on one count of receiving stolen property in
violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C), a felony of the fourth degree. He pled not guilty to the
charge and waived his right to a jury trial. At a bench trial that commenced on August 8,
2022, Wallace stipulated that the utility truck was owned by Baldwin and that Baldwin had
not given permission for anyone in Cuba to have possession of it. The state then presented
testimony from Lt. Eastes about the investigation into the utility truck and the subsequent
search of the truck after it was found in Wallace's garage. The state also presented
testimony from Rick Munk, a special agent with the National Insurance Crime Bureau, who
examined the truck in coordination with the Clinton County Sheriff's Office. Munk
specializes in construction theft, vehicle theft, and fraud investigations and frequently works
with law enforcement in identifying stolen vehicles. After examining the F-250 and the utility
truck, and noting that the VIN plate that should have been on the F-250 was attached to the
dash of the utility truck and that it was attached poorly with glue, Monk opined that a "VIN
flip" had occurred. He explained that a VIN flip is a common practice used by criminals to
try to obfuscate the identity of a stolen vehicle. Photographs of Wallace's garage, the utility
truck, the F-250, and the two vehicles' swapped VIN plates were admitted into evidence.
{¶10} Wallace presented a defense that it was Conger who had received and
-4-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
retained possession of the stolen utility truck. He did so through his cross-examination of
the state's witnesses and by calling his father, Randy Wallace, as a witness. Randy testified
that Conger rented both the residence and the garage on Wallace's property. According to
Randy, Conger had exclusive possession of the garage, Conger controlled the locks on the
garage, and Wallace had to ask Conger for permission to get into the garage when he
needed access.
{¶11} After considering the evidence introduced at trial, the trial court found Wallace
guilty of receiving stolen property. The court subsequently sentenced Wallace to a 12-
month prison term. The sentence was run concurrently to a two-year prison sentence
imposed in Clinton Common Pleas Case No. CRI 21-500-225.
{¶12} Wallace appealed his conviction, raising two assignments of error for review.
As the assignments of error are related, we address them together.
{¶13} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶14} [WALLACE'S] CONVICTION FOR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶15} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶16} [WALLACE'S] CONVICTION FOR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY WAS
NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶17} Wallace contends his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and
is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to prove that he "was
in any way involved with the theft and subsequent disassembly of the utility truck, or …
that he was even aware that it was in the garage." Wallace contends that the weight of the
evidence introduced at trial demonstrates that it was Conger, not Wallace, who had control
over the garage where the stolen truck was found.
{¶18} Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict
-5-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997); State v. Grinstead,
194 Ohio App.3d 755,
2011-Ohio-3018, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence
in order to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind
of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No.
CA2011-10-026,
2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9. Therefore, "[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 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶19} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the
"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side
of the issue rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight
of the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether
in resolving the 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. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095,
2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.
"While appellate review includes the responsibility 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,
quoting State v. Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085,
2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26. An
appellate court, therefore, 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.
Id., citing Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d at 387. Furthermore,
-6-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
although the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are
both quantitatively and qualitatively different, "[a] determination that a conviction is
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of
sufficiency." State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
{¶20} Wallace was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
2913.51(A), which provides that "[n]o person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of
another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained
through the commission of a theft offense." If the property involved is a motor vehicle, the
offense constitutes a felony of the fourth degree. R.C. 2913.51(C).
{¶21} "A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that
such circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B). "Absent an admission by a
defendant, the question of whether the defendant had reasonable cause to believe an item
was stolen can only be proved by circumstantial evidence." State v. Rivera, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2012-11-220, 2013-Ohio-3203, ¶ 9. "[T]he trier of fact 'may infer guilty knowledge
when the defendant's possession of recently stolen property either goes unexplained or is
not satisfactorily explained in the context of the surrounding circumstances, as shown by
the evidence.'" State v. Pangburn, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-11-095, 2016-Ohio-
3286, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Emery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1228,
2013-Ohio-208, ¶ 18.
{¶22} After reviewing the record, weighing inferences and examining the credibility
of the witnesses, we find that Wallace's conviction for receiving stolen property is supported
by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to
Wallace's assertions, the state did not need to prove that Wallace stole the utility truck or
was involved in the disassembly of the utility truck. Rather, the state only had to establish
that Wallace received or retained possession of the utility truck knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that it had been obtained through the commission of a theft
-7-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
offense. Lt. Eastes' and Munk's testimony, as well as the photographs of the two vehicles
and their swapped VIN plates, established all the essential elements of the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt.
{¶23} Lt. Eastes' testimony established that the stolen utility truck was found in
Wallace's garage—the garage that Wallace was found exiting moments before law
enforcement arrived on scene. The utility truck had a swapped VIN plate poorly glued into
place on the dash, its rocker panel had been cut off, and the registration paperwork in the
vehicle listed the owner as Baldwin. As Lt. Eastes explained, there was no way Wallace
would not have been able to see the utility truck when he was in the garage, as the garage
was an open space that was not separated by walls and the utility truck was plainly visible
in natural light. Wallace acted surprised that the utility truck was in the garage, claiming he
had not seen the large, heavy-duty utility truck when he was in the garage moments earlier.
He then proceeded to touch the utility truck in multiple places after being told that it would
be processed for fingerprint evidence, thereby giving rise to a reasonable inference that he
was concerned that his prints were already on the vehicle and he wanted to try to reduce
the value of any fingerprint evidence collected. Wallace's decision to leave the scene—
allegedly to use the bathroom and get ice cream—in the middle of the officers' investigation
into the utility truck, was further evidence of his guilt. See State v. Grindstaff, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2013-09-074, 2014-Ohio-2581, ¶ 22 ("Evidence of flight is admissible to
show consciousness of guilt"). If Wallace had not known or if he had not had reasonable
cause to believe that the utility truck was stolen, Wallace would not have pretended
ignorance over the truck being in the garage, would not have intentionally placed his
fingerprints on the truck, and he would not have fled from the scene. Under the
circumstances of this case, the trial court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to infer that
Wallace knew the utility truck had been stolen.
-8-
Clinton CA2022-08-021
{¶24} Wallace argues that the evidence establishes that it was Conger who had
control over the garage and was responsible for the utility truck's presence in the garage.
He points out that it was Conger who knew how to illuminate the garage and there was
testimony from his father that Conger rented the garage and had exclusive use of it. The
court heard Randy's testimony and weighed it against the evidence offered by the state. "In
a bench trial, the trial court acts as the factfinder and determines both the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight of the evidence." State v. Lowry, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-
07-070 and CA2019-07-071, 2020-Ohio-1554, ¶ 19. "[W]hen 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. Here, the court ultimately found Lt.
Eastes' and Munk's testimony more credible than Randy's testimony. As the trier of fact
was in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we will not disturb the trial
court's finding in regard to which version of events was credible and which was not. State
v. Martino, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-09-139,
2018-Ohio-2882, ¶ 13.
{¶25} Accordingly, given the evidence admitted at trial, we find that Wallace's
conviction for receiving stolen property is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Wallace's first and second assignments of error are
overruled.
{¶26} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
-9-
