The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the convictions of Treshaun Lee-Robinson on charges of receiving stolen property, forgery, and theft. The case centered around altered checks and the subsequent deposit and withdrawal of funds from Lee-Robinson’s bank account.
The Charges and the Trial
The case originated from incidents occurring between July and August of 2023. Lee-Robinson was indicted on several charges, including receiving stolen property, two counts of forgery (each specifying the victim was elderly or disabled, with a loss of $1,000 or more but less than $7,500), and theft from a protected class (again, specifying an elderly victim and a loss within the same monetary range).
The trial took place before a judge (a bench trial). After the prosecution presented its case, a motion was made under Rule 29 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. However, Lee-Robinson was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to community control (a form of probation) for one year and ordered to pay restitution to the bank that reimbursed the victim.
The Core of the Appeal: Sufficiency of the Evidence
Lee-Robinson appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support the guilty verdict. This type of appeal essentially challenges whether the prosecution provided enough evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s role in this situation is to determine whether, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime proven.
The Facts of the Case
The victim, Robert, testified that he and his brother managed the finances for his 93-year-old mother. In August 2023, Robert discovered that a check he had written for $27.41 to State Farm had been altered and cleared for $2,300.44. The payee on the check had been changed to “Treshaun Lee Robinson.”
The victim testified that he had written the check and put it in a mailbox at the post office in Broadview Heights, Ohio. He reported the altered check to the police.
Detective Brian Scabbo of the Brecksville police department investigated the case. He subpoenaed records from the bank where the altered check was negotiated (Dollar Bank). The detective found that the check was deposited into an account bearing the name “Treshaun Lee Robinson.” The detective also found that the money was then transferred to a CashApp account with the username “Treshau.”
Lee-Robinson testified in his own defense. He stated that he had recently been laid off from his job and had no prior criminal record besides traffic offenses. He admitted to having a personal account with Dollar Bank and said he had opened an account under the name of his business, Tregotit, LLC. He claimed he was unaware of any suspicious activity in his account until after his arrest. He denied any connection to the victim, the codefendant, or Broadview Heights. When shown the altered check and the signature on the back, Lee-Robinson denied that the handwriting was his.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
The court considered Lee-Robinson’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was responsible for the crimes. Lee-Robinson argued that the prosecution improperly “stacked inferences.” This is a legal principle that generally prevents a fact-finder from drawing an inference based solely on another inference. However, the court clarified that a fact-finder can rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence, which carry the same weight.
The court found that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court highlighted the following points:
* The altered check was deposited into a Dollar Bank account owned by Lee-Robinson’s LLC.
* The check was signed “Treshaun Robinson.”
* The funds were transferred to a CashApp account with the username “Treshau,” which is similar to Lee-Robinson’s name.
* The Dollar Bank records included a copy of Lee-Robinson’s driver’s license.
* Detective Scabbo identified Lee-Robinson as the person in the driver’s license.
The court also noted that Lee-Robinson admitted to owning and controlling the bank account where the check was negotiated but denied having a CashApp account, despite the username. The court also pointed to the trial court’s observations about the similarities between the signatures on various documents. The trial court found similarities between Lee-Robinson’s known signature and the signature on the forged check.
Based on this evidence, the court concluded that a rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court overruled Lee-Robinson’s assignment of error and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
The Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority opinion, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The dissenting judge raised concerns that the decision could lead to the conviction of innocent people who are victims of fraud. The dissenting judge emphasized that merely having the same name as the person involved in the crime is not enough to prove identity. The dissent argued that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to establish that Lee-Robinson was the only person who could have deposited the check or that the CashApp account was directly linked to him. The dissent noted that the detective did not subpoena CashApp records to determine the IP addresses used to deposit and withdraw the funds.
The dissenting judge noted that the evidence was more suggestive than conclusive, and that the prosecution relied too heavily on the fact that Lee-Robinson’s name and account were used in the scheme. The dissent would have found that the similarities between Lee-Robinson’s signature and the signature on the forged check, in the absence of other evidence, were not enough to establish his guilt.