The Akron Legal News

Veteran criminal has his shoplifting appeal rejected

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 16, 2014

A man who robbed an Ashtabula County department store had his conviction affirmed in a recent opinion released by Ohio’s 11th District Court of Appeals.

This was defendant Nathaniel Grega’s second appeal challenging the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.

The case against Grega was based upon an alleged shoplifting incident at a K-Mart store in the city of Ashtabula.

Case summary from Grega’s first appeal stated that, on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, three members of the store’s loss prevention staff were on duty: Manager Melody Rayel, David Hamilton and Jessica Harchalk.

While watching a monitor that displayed video from several cameras placed around the store, Hamilton noticed a white male, later determined to be Grega, engaging in suspicious behavior in the electronics department.

Hamilton testified that he watched Grega rapidly select several DVDs and place a bag of chips over them.

He proceeded to inform Rayel and Harchalk of the situation.

Harchalk continued to observe the suspect’s movements on the closed-circuit monitor while Rayel left the office to attempt to locate him in the store.

Harchalk watched Grega exit the electronics department with the shopping basket, walk through the party supplies department, and eventually make his way into the hardware area.

During this period Harchalk stated at trial that she could not see Grega at all times because of the positions of the cameras.

However, when Grega left the hardware section, she stated that he no longer had the shopping basket or any items in his hands.

Rayel caught up with Grega before he left the electronics department and she proceeded to discretely follow him while he moved into the party supplies department, where she observed him placing some of the DVDs into his jacket.

Upon following him to hardware, Rayel testified that she saw the man place the remainder of the DVDs into his jacket and then discard the shopping basket. Rayel stated that the suspect never left her sight during this period.

As Grega walked toward one of the store’s main exits, Rayel observed him bypass the cashier lanes and fail to pay for the DVDs in his jacket.

When he walked through the first set of automatic doors, Rayel stepped in front of him, identified herself as a member of store security and asked him to accompany her back into the store.

In response, Grega picked Rayel up by the shoulders and moved her to the side, where she was no longer blocking his exit. He then ran through the second set of doors, into the adjoining shopping mall.

Meanwhile, Hamilton watched the confrontation from a distance. He gave chase when he saw Grega run.

The chase ended when Grega ran by a kid’s play area but Hamilton was able to recover some of the DVDs after they fell from the culprit’s jacket during the pursuit.

Grega was identified and apprehended after a deputy sheriff was able to identify Grega from a still photograph because he had previously served jail time.

In his first appeal last year, Grega contested the merits of his conviction and sentence and claimed that he was denied a fair trial as a result of certain procedural errors.

The 11th District’s three-judge appellate panel overruled most of Grega’s assignments of error but remanded the case for resentencing, ruling that his convictions for robbery and theft were allied offenses of similar import.

On remand, the trial court merged the two convictions and the state elected to proceed to sentencing on the robbery charge. The lower court imposed a three-year prison term and gave credit for time served.

Grega’s most recent appeal challenged the sentence imposed by the trial court. According to him, the trial court abused its discretion because it essentially reinstated its original sentence.

“Appellant maintains the sentence is disproportionately excessive when the facts that led to the charges are considered in light of the purposes and principles of felony sentencing as well as the statutory recidivism and seriousness factors,” wrote Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice for the court of appeals. “We do not agree.”

The appellate panel noted that a trial court is not required to engage in factual findings but must only consider statutory factors when imposing a felony sentence.

As long as the record indicated that the trial court made the proper considerations, that court met its sentencing obligation.

Grega contended that, even thought his three-year sentence was “mid-range for robbery,” it was still excessive given his actions.

“Notwithstanding the relatively benign nature of the underlying robbery, the trial court, at the resentencing hearing, emphasized the underlying matter represented appellant’s fourth felony conviction,” wrote Rice, who also noted that Grega has been convicted of more than 25 misdemeanor crimes since 2011, 11 of which were theft offenses.

“In light of appellant’s previous record, the trial court determined it would not reduce its original sentence,” wrote Rice. “Because appellant was convicted of felony robbery and has a significant previous record, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it resentenced (Grega) to three years’ imprisonment.”

Judges Thomas Wright and Diane Grendell joined Rice to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Grega, 2014-Ohio-5179.

[Back]