State V Vance
[Cite as State v. Vance, 2025-Ohio-2599.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 114717
v. :
YASIN VANCE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 24, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-23-687814-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Kristen Hatcher, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Russell S. Bensing, for appellant.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Yasin Vance (“Vance”) appeals his convictions.
Plaintiff-appellee State of Ohio concedes reversible error occurred pursuant to
Loc.App.R. 16(B).1 Following a thorough review of the record and law, this court
reverses Vance’s convictions and sentence, and remands this matter to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On December 22, 2023, Vance was charged with one count of
vandalism, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(2); and one
count of aggravated theft, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(2). Both counts contained specifications as to the value of the
property involved. After a jury trial, Vance was found guilty of both counts, but the
jury did not fill out a further finding on the verdict forms as to either count as to
the value of the property at issue. Journal Entry No. 188072932 (Oct. 30, 2024).
{¶3} The trial court sentenced Vance on both counts, as fourth-degree
felonies, to “5 year(s) of community control/probation on each count, under
supervision of the adult probation department.” Journal Entry No. 189572224
(Dec. 10, 2024). Additionally, the trial court sentenced Vance to 200 hours of
community work service and ordered Vance to maintain verifiable employment
and write a letter of apology to his employer.
{¶4} Vance filed this appeal, assigning three errors for our review:
1 Loc.App.R. 16(B) provides: “Notice of Conceded Error. When a party
concedes an error that is dispositive of the entire appeal, the party conceding the
error shall file a separate notice of conceded error in lieu of a responsive brief. Once
briefing is completed, the appeal will be randomly assigned to a merit panel for
review. The appeal will be submitted on the briefs unless the assigned panel sets an
oral argument date.”
1. The trial court erred in entering convictions of fourth-degree
felonies on the charges of aggravated theft and vandalism;
2. The trial court erred by failing to merge the offenses of
vandalism and theft; and
3. The trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error
in ordering defendant to write a letter of apology to the
complainant.
{¶5} The State concedes Vance’s first and second assignments of error, and
with the disposition of the first two assignments of error, the third assignment of
error is moot. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). “In a conceded error case, where a party
concedes the presence of a dispositive reversible error, this court conducts its own
examination of the record to determine whether the concession accurately reflects
settled law.” State v. Luna, 2024-Ohio-5706, ¶ 4 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Green,
2024-Ohio-2174, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.); State v. Forbes, 2022-Ohio-2871, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.);
Cleveland v. Patterson, 2020-Ohio-1628, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.); and Loc.App.R. 16(B).
II. Standard of Review
{¶6} An appellate court reviews questions of law de novo. State v. Garcia,
2022-Ohio-707, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
III. Law and Analysis
{¶7} In Vance’s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred
in entering convictions of fourth-degree felonies on the charges of aggravated theft
and vandalism. R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) states:
When the presence of one or more additional elements makes an
offense one of more serious degree: A guilty verdict shall state either
the degree of the offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that
such additional element or elements are present. Otherwise, a guilty
verdict constitutes a finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense
charged.
{¶8} In Vance’s case, the jury failed to make a further finding as to either
count as to the value of the property at issue. The Ohio Supreme Court has held
that “pursuant to the clear language of R.C. 2945.75, a verdict form signed by a jury
must include either the degree of the offense of which the defendant is convicted
or a statement that an aggravating element has been found to justify convicting a
defendant of a greater degree of a criminal offense.” State v. Pelfrey, 2007-Ohio-
256, ¶ 14.
{¶9} The jury found Vance guilty of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2).
R.C. 2913.02(B) states in part:
[A] violation of this section is misdemeanor theft, a misdemeanor of
the first degree. If the value of the property or services stolen is one
thousand dollars or more and is less than seven thousand five
hundred dollars or if the property stolen is any of the property listed
in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, a violation of this section is
theft, a felony of the fifth degree. If the value of the property or
services stolen is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more and is
less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, or if the offender has
been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony theft offense within the
previous three years, a violation of this section is grand theft, a felony
of the fourth degree.
{¶10} If the value of the property is not specified, a violation of theft is a
first-degree misdemeanor. Because the jury did not make a finding of the value of
property at issue, it was error for the trial court to find Vance guilty of a fourth-
degree felony. Vance should have been found guilty of theft, a misdemeanor of the
first degree. Vance was also found guilty of vandalism, a violation of R.C.
2909.05(B)(2). R.C. 2909.05(E) states:
Whoever violates this section is guilty of vandalism. Except as
otherwise provided in this division, vandalism is a felony of the fifth
degree that is punishable by a fine of up to two thousand five hundred
dollars in addition to the penalties specified for a felony of the fifth
degree in sections 2929.11 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code. If the value
of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is seven
thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty
thousand dollars, vandalism is a felony of the fourth degree. If the
value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is one
hundred fifty thousand dollars or more, vandalism is a felony of the
third degree.
{¶11} If the value of the property vandalized is not specified, a violation of
vandalism is a fifth-degree felony. Similarly with Vance’s theft charge, the jury did
not make a finding of the value of the property at issue. Thus, the trial court erred
and Vance should have been found guilty of a fifth-degree vandalism, and not a
fourth-degree felony.
{¶12} In Vance’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
erred by failing to merge the offenses of vandalism and theft. At sentencing, the
State did not object to the merger of the offenses and elected to go forward with
sentencing on the vandalism count. Tr. 435. However, in the journal entry and at
the sentencing hearing, the trial court did not indicate on the record that it merged
the offenses for the purposes of sentencing.
{¶13} Therefore, Vance’s first and second assignments of errors are
sustained.
{¶14} Judgment reversed and remanded.
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.
_________________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR