[Cite as State v. Singleton,

.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 28457

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE TIMOTHEUS D. SINGLETON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR 2016 05 1532

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: December 26, 2018

CALLAHAN, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, Timotheus Singleton, appeals his conviction for robbery. This Court

affirms.

I.

{¶2} One day in April 2016, Mr. Singleton got into an argument with his girlfriend at

the apartment that they shared. According to his girlfriend’s recollection, Mr. Singleton

collected his X-box game console as he left the apartment, but forgot to take the game controller.

When he tried to reenter the apartment to retrieve it, she refused to let him enter. Mr. Singleton

kicked in the door and entered the apartment nonetheless. A physical altercation then ensued

between the two on the front lawn. Mr. Singleton took his girlfriend’s mobile phone, which had

fallen to the ground during the scuffle, and left the scene.

{¶3} Mr. Singleton was charged with one count of robbery, a violation of R.C.

2911.02(A)(2), and he waived his right to a trial by jury. The trial court found him guilty and 2

sentenced him to six years in prison. This Court granted Mr. Singleton leave to file a delayed

appeal, but dismissed his appeal because he failed to file an appellate brief. Mr. Singleton filed

an application to reopen this appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging that his appellate counsel

was ineffective by virtue of failing to file the appellate brief. This Court granted the application

for reopening, and the appeal is before this Court on the briefs filed by both parties.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE [AND] IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS TEN AND SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL.

{¶4} Although framed as challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence

supporting his conviction, the substance of Mr. Singleton’s assignments of error argue only that

his conviction for robbery is based on insufficient evidence. Specifically, Mr. Singleton has

argued that the State failed to prove that he used or threatened the immediate use of force while

committing the offense or fleeing immediately after committing it.

{¶5} Mr. Singleton was charged with robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2),

which provides that “No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing

immediately after the attempt or offense, shall * * * [i]nflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to

inflict physical harm on another.” R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), on the other hand, provides that “No

person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or 3

offense, shall * * * [u]se or threaten the immediate use of force against another.” Mr. Singleton

was neither charged with nor convicted of violating R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), so the State was not

required to prove that he used or threatened the immediate use of force in connection with the

offense. Mr. Singleton has not argued that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to

support his conviction under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), and this Court declines to construct such an

argument on his behalf. See State v. Jacobs, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27545,

.

{¶6} Mr. Singleton’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.

III.

{¶7} Mr. Singleton’s assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the

Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, 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. 4

Costs taxed to Appellant.

LYNNE S. CALLAHAN FOR THE COURT

SCHAFER, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ADAM VANHO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.