State v. Pacific

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Christopher Pacific’s conviction for fifth-degree-felony breaking and entering under R.C. 2911.13(A). The court held that correcting the property address in the indictment and bill of particulars did not change the identity of the offense or prejudice Pacific, and it rejected his challenges concerning a continuance, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and the alleged sentencing-entry inconsistency. The opinion discusses force or stealth, trespass, unoccupied structures, and the purpose to commit a theft offense or felony.

Holdings

1. An amendment correcting the address of the nursery or greenhouse property did not change the name or identity of the breaking-and-entering offense, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the amendment because Pacific was not prejudiced.
2. Pacific's challenge to the denial of a continuance was not reviewable because he did not file a motion for a new trial as required by Crim.R. 7(D); in any event, the record did not show prejudice or a resulting failure of justice.
3. The evidence was sufficient to sustain Pacific's conviction under R.C. 2911.13(A).
4. Pacific's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Pacific's requests to modify the judgment entry were moot because the entry already correctly stated that the offense was a fifth-degree felony and that the alternate prison term was 12 months.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly permitted the State to amend the indictment and bill of particulars to correct the greenhouse property's address.
2. Whether the trial court improperly denied Pacific's request for a continuance after permitting the amendment.
3. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for breaking and entering under Ohio Revised Code § 2911.13(A).
4. Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the appellate court should modify the judgment entry to correct discrepancies concerning the degree of the felony and the alternate prison term for violating community control.

Disposition

affirmed