State v. Pelfrey

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 2427

Syllabus

Defendant obtained a power of attorney from his grandmother, altered the date of it, and used it, unbeknownst to the grandmother, to obtain a $75,000 mortgage loan on her home grandmother did not receive the money. After defendant was aware of the criminal investigation, defendant had two different individuals fabricate documents to help his case. Defendant's convictions for theft, forgery, and tampering with evidence were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant's handwriting expert, whose report was not timely disclosed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to continue the trial, which was made orally immediately before jury selection and in response to the exclusion of his handwriting expert. Grandmother's testimony regarding the power of attorney did not violate the parol evidence rule. Defendant did not demonstrate that his speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71 were violated. Judgment affirmed.