Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Gray

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 814
• Docket Number: C-250459

• Judges: Bock

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.3K)

• PDF

Syllabus

CRIMINAL DAMAGING — WITHOUT CONSENT — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — CLERICAL ERROR — RESTITUTION: Defendant's conviction for criminal damaging was supported by sufficient evidence because a rational trier of fact could infer that defendant damaged the victim's property without the victim's consent based on tension preceding the damaging, the victim involving the police in the dispute, and the victim's pursuit of repair estimates. Defendant's conviction for criminal damaging was not contrary to the weight of the evidence because the trier of fact was entitled to find the victim's testimony credible despite minor inconsistencies in the victim's account. The trial court did not commit plain error when it relied on excluded testimony and information from the State to determine restitution because evidentiary rules are inapplicable at sentencing proceedings and the restitution statute allows the trial court to consider information provided by the State.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gray, 2026-Ohio-814.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250459
TRIAL NO. C/25/CRB/4819
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
STAR GRAY, :

     Defendant-Appellant.                 :

      This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
      For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed and the cause is remanded.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 3/11/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Gray, 2026-Ohio-814.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250459
TRIAL NO. C/25/CRB/4819
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :
OPINION
STAR GRAY, :

     Defendant-Appellant.             :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 11, 2026

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Chief
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David H. Hoffmann,
Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

   {¶1}    In this appeal, defendant-appellant Star Gray presents four assignments

of error challenging her conviction for criminal damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06.

   {¶2}    In her first two assignments of error, Gray asks this court to review

whether the State’s evidence proved that the owner of a damaged vehicle consented to

having her vehicle damaged. We overrule both assignments of error. The State

presented sufficient evidence on this element because a rational trier of fact could infer

that the owner did not consent to the damage based on tension between the owner and

Gray, the owner’s decision to involve the police, and the owner’s pursuit of a repair

estimate. Moreover, Gray’s conviction is not against the weight of the evidence because

the trier of fact could find that the owner’s testimony was credible despite minor

inconsistencies.

   {¶3}    Gray’s third assignment of error contends that the trial court committed

plain error when it elevated her offense from a second-degree misdemeanor to a first-

degree misdemeanor. We sustain this assignment of error and remand the cause to

the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting clerical errors.

   {¶4}    In her fourth assignment of error, Gray argues that the trial court

committed plain error when it relied on inadmissible evidence to determine

restitution. But evidentiary rules do not apply to sentencing proceedings under Evid.R.

101(D)(3). We overrule the fourth assignment of error.

   {¶5}    We affirm Gray’s conviction and remand the cause to the trial court.

                    I. Factual and Procedural History

   {¶6}    The State charged Gray with criminal damaging in violation of R.C.

2909.06, a second-degree misdemeanor.

                                        3
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶7}    At trial, L.J., the damaged vehicle’s owner, testified for the State.

According to L.J., she was discussing lunch options with her granddaughter while

parked next to Gray’s vehicle in a Walmart parking lot. As L.J. pulled out of her parking

spot, Gray got out of her vehicle and accused L.J. of hitting Gray’s vehicle. After L.J.

denied hitting Gray’s vehicle, Gray accused L.J.’s granddaughter of hitting Gray’s

vehicle. L.J. testified that her granddaughter was inside L.J.’s vehicle the entire time

and did not strike Gray’s vehicle.

   {¶8}    L.J. wanted to resolve the issue through police and insurance, but Gray

refused to exchange insurance information and insisted it was a “civil matter.” When

Gray eventually went into the Walmart, L.J. called the police. After Gray returned to

her vehicle, Gray, L.J., and officers discussed the matter. L.J. testified that the officers

agreed that the issue was better suited for insurance.

   {¶9}    According to L.J., Gray “got mad,” remarked, “[W]e just allowed to hit

people’s cars,” and then “forcibly threw her car door open to hit [L.J.’s] car.” Gray

dented L.J.’s vehicle. The police were still present, and L.J. confirmed to the officers

that Gray hit L.J.’s car. Eventually, L.J. obtained a repair estimate.

   {¶10} After the State rested, Gray unsuccessfully moved for a Crim.R. 29

judgment of acquittal. At the end of trial, the trial court found Gray guilty of criminal

damaging based on L.J.’s testimony.

   {¶11} The trial court moved to sentencing. The State informed the trial court

that L.J. did not want Gray to receive jail time, but simply wanted her car repaired.

While the State deferred to the trial court “as to sentencing on the M2,” it asked for

restitution in the amount of “$1,685.63” for L.J.’s vehicle. The trial court asked if the

amount was “$1,683.65?” The State corrected the trial court and stated that the repair

cost was $1,685.63.

                                         4
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶12} The trial court sentenced Gray to a suspended 30-day sentence and

ordered her to pay “$1,685.65 [sic].” The judge’s sheet and docket state that Gray

pleaded guilty, was convicted of first-degree misdemeanor criminal damaging by plea,

and was ordered to pay $1,685.65 in restitution.

                                 II. Analysis

   {¶13} On appeal, Gray raises four assignments of error challenging her

conviction and restitution order.

A. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Gray lacked consent to
damage L.J.’s vehicle

   {¶14} At trial, the State carries the burden of producing “sufficient evidence

on every element of an offense.” State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 13. We review

the sufficiency of the evidence by “‘viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to

the prosecution, [and determining if] any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v.

Armstrong, 2016-Ohio-2842, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

   {¶15}   To convict Gray of criminal damaging, the State had to prove that Gray

knowingly, by any means, caused or created “a substantial risk of physical harm to any

property of another without the other person’s consent.” R.C. 2909.06(A)(1).

   {¶16} Gray limits her arguments to the “without consent” element and

contends that, under our recent opinion in State v. Robinson, 2023-Ohio-2312 (1st

Dist.), the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove that she lacked consent to damage

L.J.’s vehicle. In Robinson, we recognized that multiple pieces of circumstantial

evidence can prove that a property owner did not consent to having her property

damaged. Id. at ¶ 26. Circumstantial evidence, or “‘the proof of facts by direct evidence

                                         5
            OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

from which the trier of fact may infer or derive by reasoning other facts in accordance

with the common experience of mankind,’” has the same probative value as direct

evidence. State v. Collins, 2013-Ohio-488, ¶ 15-16 (8th Dist.), quoting State v.

Hartman, 2008-Ohio-3683, ¶ 37 (8th Dist.).

   {¶17} In Robinson, we explained that a property owner’s lack of consent may

be inferred from certain facts, including

   (1) an altercation that occurred between the property owner and the

   defendant, (2) the property was not previously damaged, (3) the owner

   immediately called the police and signed the complaint, (4) the owner

   obtained an estimate of the damages and filed an insurance claim, (5)

   the defendant fled when police arrived, and (6) the defendant lacked

   permission to be on the property where the damage occurred.

Robinson at ¶ 27.

   {¶18} We applied those factors in Robinson and explained that the State

produced no evidence that the vehicle owner and Robinson had a history of animosity,

or even a moment of tension, before Robinson damaged her car. Id. at ¶ 31. Nor was

there evidence that the vehicle owner “called the police at any time.” Id. at ¶ 32. And

there was no evidence that the vehicle owner filed an insurance claim or received an

estimate. Id. at ¶ 33. So, we held that the evidence was insufficient to prove criminal

damaging in the absence of any facts supporting an inference that the vehicle owner

did not consent to the damage. Id. at ¶ 29.

   {¶19} While Gray concedes that L.J. obtained a repair estimate for the damage

to her vehicle, Gray insists that her “case lacks multiple factors indicating a lack of

consent.” We disagree and hold that the State’s circumstantial evidence supports an

inference that Gray damaged L.J.’s vehicle without L.J.’s consent. L.J. testified that

                                        6
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Gray “got mad” when L.J. elected to use her car insurance to resolve the alleged

damage to Gray’s car. Plus, L.J. reported Gray’s actions to the police. A rational trier

of fact could find that L.J. did not consent to the damage to her vehicle based on the

tension between L.J. and Gray, the involvement of the police, and the repair estimate.

   {¶20} Because the evidence was sufficient to convict Gray of criminal

damaging, we overrule the first assignment of error.

B. Gray’s conviction is not against the weight of the evidence

   {¶21}    In her second assignment of error, Gray asserts that L.J.’s account

lacked credibility, and therefore her conviction is against the weight of the evidence.

   {¶22} We may reverse a conviction as against the manifest weight of the

evidence and order a new trial if we find, following an independent review of the

record, that the trier of fact “clearly lost its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence

and created such a miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a

new trial ordered.” State v. Nichols, 2025-Ohio-1515, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.), quoting State v.

Sorrels, 71 Ohio App.3d 162, 166 (1st Dist. 1991). A manifest-weight review requires

this court to “consider witness credibility.” Nichols at ¶ 18. We “generally defer[] to the

trial court on credibility issues because it is in the ‘“best position to judge the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented.”’” Id at ¶ 27,

quoting State v. Rose, 2024-Ohio-5689, ¶ 28 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Bullock,

2022-Ohio-925, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.).

   {¶23} Gray identifies several alleged inconsistencies in L.J.’s testimony to

attack her credibility. First, Gray contends that her becoming angered over the use of

insurance “does not make sense.” Second, she claims that L.J.’s preference for using

insurance to resolve the alleged damage to Gray’s vehicle is inconsistent with calling

                                          7
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the police. Third, she argues that L.J.’s “testimony that Ms. Gray initially accused her

and not her granddaughter of dinging her car is not credible.”

   {¶24} We are “‘not required to accept the incredible as true.’” Nichols at ¶ 19,

quoting State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 23-24 (1987). But the portions of L.J.’s

account cited by Gray are neither inconsistent nor incredible. L.J.’s decision to call the

police fits with her desire to handle the matter through insurance. And the prospect of

dealing with insurance can irritate even the most carefree person. See Beck v. Farmers

Ins. Exchange, 701 P.2d 795, 802, fn. 6 (Utah 1985) (explaining that damages for

mental anguish are unavailable “for the mere disappointment, frustration, or anxiety

normally experienced in the process of filing an insurance claim.”).

   {¶25} The record does not show that the trial court lost its way when it found

Gray guilty of criminal damaging. We overrule the second assignment of error.

C. Multiple clerical errors warrant a remand

   {¶26} In her third assignment of error, Gray maintains that the trial court

committed plain error when it journalized a conviction for first-degree misdemeanor

criminal damaging when Gray was charged with, and convicted of, second-degree

misdemeanor criminal damaging. The State concedes the error.

   {¶27} Under Crim.R. 36, “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other

parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission, may

be corrected by the court at any time.” A clerical error is “‘“a mistake or omission,

mechanical in nature and apparent on the record, which does not involve a legal

decision or judgment.”’” State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-5705, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel.

Cruzado v. Zaleski, 2006-Ohio-5795, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Brown, 136 Ohio App.3d

816, 819-820 (3d Dist. 2001).

                                        8
              OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶28} Gray was charged with criminal damaging, a second-degree

misdemeanor offense. R.C. 2909.06(A)(1). But the judge’s sheet incorrectly states that

Gray was convicted of a first-degree misdemeanor offense. A remand is necessary to

correct this clerical error.

   {¶29} The State also concedes a clerical error in the amount of restitution on

the judge’s sheet. While the State repeatedly said that repairing L.J.’s vehicle cost

“$1,685.63,” the judge’s sheet instructs Gray to pay “$1,685.65.”

   {¶30} And during our review of the judge’s sheet and docket, we identified

additional clerical errors. First, the judge’s sheet and docket state that Gray pleaded

guilty and was convicted by plea, but Gray pleaded not guilty and was found guilty

after a trial. Second, the victim’s name is misspelled on the judge’s sheet.

   {¶31} Therefore, we sustain the third assignment of error and remand the

matter to the trial court to correct its clerical errors with a nunc pro tunc entry that

reflects that Gray pleaded not guilty, was found guilty of second-degree misdemeanor

criminal damaging following a trial, and owes “$1,685.63” in restitution to the victim.

D. Restitution amount

   {¶32} In her final assignment of error, Gray argues that the trial court

committed plain error when it relied on evidence that was excluded at trial to

determine the restitution amount.

   {¶33} Generally, we review a trial court’s award of restitution for a

misdemeanor offense for an abuse of discretion. State v. Miles, 2021-Ohio-4581, ¶ 5

(1st Dist.). But Gray did not object to the restitution amount and forfeited “all but plain

error on appeal.” State v. White, 2025-Ohio-4449, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). To demonstrate plain

error, Gray must identify a trial court error that was “plain,” or obvious, and “affected

h[er] substantial rights.” State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 17.

                                        9
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶34} Restitution     for   misdemeanor      offenses   is   governed    by   R.C.

2929.28(A)(1) and must be an “amount based on the victim’s economic loss.” The

statute provides that “[t]he victim, victim’s representative, victim’s attorney, if

applicable, the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s designee, and the offender may provide

information relevant to the determination of the amount of restitution.” R.C.

2929.28(A)(1). If an objection is raised, the trial court must hold an evidentiary

hearing and determine the restitution amount “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

R.C. 2929.28(A)(1).

   {¶35} Gray argues that the trial court erred by considering excluded evidence

when it calculated restitution. At trial, the trial court sustained an objection and

prevented L.J. from testifying about the repair estimate that she received.

   {¶36} But Evid.R. 101(D)(3) states that “the Rules of Evidence do not apply in

sentencing proceedings.” City of Cleveland v. Figueroa, 2022-Ohio-4012, ¶ 11 (8th

Dist.). So, a court ordering restitution, “‘“is not restricted by the Rules of Evidence in

determining the amount of a restitution order.”’” Id., quoting Strongsville v. Kane,

2012-Ohio-3372, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Tuemler, 2005-Ohio-1240, ¶ 17 (12th

Dist.). Therefore, a court may consider otherwise inadmissible evidence when

determining restitution.

   {¶37} More to the point, Gray did not dispute the repair estimate provided by

the State. Restitution awards must be based on competent, credible evidence. See

State v. Palmer, 2024-Ohio-1445, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Betley, 2018-Ohio-

2516, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.); see State v. Dunn, 2026-Ohio-241, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.) (“While the

rules of evidence do not apply at restitution hearings, courts have held that some type

of evidence must support the award.”). But this requirement derives from, and is

clearly applicable to, restitution awarded after evidentiary hearings. See Palmer at

                                       10
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

¶ 13. So, “during an evidentiary hearing, a trial court must hear evidence in order to

determine an appropriate amount of restitution.” (Emphasis in original.) State v.

Reynoso, 2025-Ohio-3119, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.).

   {¶38} But when no party disputes a restitution amount, R.C. 2929.28(A)(1)

does not require an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Lalain, 2013-Ohio-3093, ¶ 1 (“A

trial court is required to conduct a hearing on restitution only if the offender, victim,

or survivor disputes the amount of restitution ordered.”). The absence of an

evidentiary hearing limits our review of restitution awards. See Dunn at ¶ 24 (“neither

party submitted evidence to the trial court and we will not resolve factual disputes

without any evidence in the record.”).

   {¶39} Because Gray did not dispute that the cost to repair L.J.’s car was

$1,685.63, the trial court had no obligation to hold a restitution hearing. Instead, it

could rely on the information provided by the State to determine the restitution

amount. See id.; see also State v. Speights, 2021-Ohio-1194, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (reasoning

that, if the amount of restitution is not disputed, the trial court could base restitution

on a victim’s recommendation under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)).

   {¶40} We overrule the fourth assignment of error.

                               III. Conclusion

   {¶41} We overrule the first, second, and fourth assignments of error and

affirm Gray’s conviction. We sustain her third assignment of error and remand the

cause to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting its clerical errors.

                                             Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.

                                        11