An appellate court panel upheld the conviction of a Stark County man, who — for a month — kept in his possession a box truck that he had rented for the day from a Lewis Center truck rental and storage company.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals panel was unpersuaded by 57-year-old Michael Lee’s assertion that his unauthorized-use-of-a-motor-vehicle conviction was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence and that the jury’s rejection of his affirmative defense also contradicted the evidence.

“Evidence presented by the state demonstrated that Lee signed a contract with Budget (Truck Rental) which clearly stated the rental period of 24 hours and the date and time the truck was due back to Budget,” Fifth District Judge Andrew King wrote for the panel. “Further, Lee was aware that he was to return the truck the following day because (dealer Chad) Day told Lee he had another reservation for the truck that weekend and therefore needed it back as agreed.”

Lee rented a 26-foot box truck for 24 hours from Budget dealer 23 Self Storage LLC at 5 p.m. on Feb. 28, 2024, according to case summary.

When Lee picked up the truck, Day informed him that he needed the truck back in a timely fashion as he had another reservation for it that weekend. Lee advised he would likely return the truck that evening and, if not, first thing in the morning.

Upon Lee’s failure to return the truck as promised, Day contacted him, advising him that the truck must be returned by 5 p.m. that day (Feb. 29, 2024), summary provided.

Lee failed to return the truck by the deadline and kept the truck for a month before Day contacted police to report it stolen.

The truck was entered into a national stolen vehicle database, summary noted.

The Budget corporate office sent a certified letter to Lee’s Alliance address, but the letter was returned as undeliverable. The office also attempted to reach Lee via email without success.

During the month the truck was in Lee’s possession, he was charged for the additional days’ usage in addition to a late charge, per the terms of the signed rental contract, summary provided.

A traffic camera in Willoughby captured the truck’s license plate April 4, 2024, and local police stopped the truck and arrested Lee.

According to the summary, Lee acted surprised when he was advised that the truck had been reported stolen.

A Delaware County grand jury returned an indictment charging Lee with single counts each of grand theft of a motor vehicle and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle April 24, 2024.

Lee pleaded not guilty to the charges and elected to proceed to a jury trial scheduled for Oct. 24, 2024.

On the charge of unauthorized use, Lee asserted the affirmative defense that he had a reasonable yet mistaken belief that he was authorized to continue to use the truck because Budget continued to charge his credit card, summary detailed.

The jury acquitted Lee of grand theft of a motor vehicle, but convicted him of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and he subsequently was sentenced to eight months of incarceration and ordered to make restitution to Budget.

“When Lee failed to return the truck per the terms of his agreement with Budget, and after being verbally told to return the truck, Lee was using the vehicle both beyond Budget’s consent and after revocation of Budget’s consent,” King continued. “We find this evidence was sufficient to prove Lee’s unauthorized use of the vehicle. We further find the jury did not lose its was in so convicting Lee.”

In consideration of Lee’s argument that the jury lost its way when it rejected his defense that he held the reasonable but mistaken belief that he was authorized to continue using the truck based on the rental company charging him for its use, the panel noted Day’s testimony that Lee was aware of when the truck was supposed to be returned.

“Simply because Budget engaged in an act of loss prevention by continuing to charge Lee’s (credit) card does not also mean Lee had Budget’s consent to use the truck indefinitely,” King wrote.