Cleveland v. Goode

Opinion

[Cite as Cleveland v. Goode, 2026-Ohio-2824.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF CLEVELAND, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115873 v. :

DEZIMEN GOODE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 23, 2026

Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2025-TRC-013616

Appearances:

Mark Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, Aqueelah Jordan, Chief Prosecutor, and Aric Kinast, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Edward F. Borkowski, Jr., for appellant.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J.:

Defendant-appellant Dezimen Goode appeals his conviction for

operating a vehicle while under the influence (“OVI”), arguing that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.1 After review, we overrule his

assigned error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Procedural History and Relevant Facts

In August 2025, Goode was cited for two counts of OVI in violation of

R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (A)(2), both first-degree misdemeanors; one count of

operating a vehicle without lights in violation of R.C. 4513.03, a minor

misdemeanor; and not wearing a seat belt in violation of R.C. 4512.263(B)(1), a

minor misdemeanor. He pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the case proceeded

to a bench trial where the following facts were presented.

Plaintiff-appellee City of Cleveland presented Trooper Prestia of the

Ohio State Highway Patrol to testify. Trooper Prestia had been an officer for the

Ohio State Highway Patrol for about two and a half years. He had made over

150 traffic stops of drivers who he suspected were driving while under the influence.

He also had training on standardized field-sobriety testing, advanced roadside

impaired driving enforcement, and advanced cannabis training for impaired

drivers.

Trooper Prestia testified that around 12:37 a.m. on the evening of

August 14, 2025, he was patrolling on Interstate 71 North in a marked Ohio State

Highway Patrol vehicle when he observed a vehicle with “no lights at all” on it enter

the interstate. He then observed the driver of the vehicle change lanes without using

1 Although he claims in his assigned error that his “convictions were against the manifest

weight of the evidence,” he argues only that his OVI conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. a turn signal. The driver then “weaved outside the lane to the left” and “continued

weaving in the lane after that.” Trooper Prestia activated his overhead lights and

initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.

The City played Trooper Prestia’s dash-camera video. The footage

shows a white vehicle without any lights on it entering the highway from the right.

There were four lanes of traffic on the highway where the vehicle entered. The white

vehicle changed lanes from the far-right lane to the second lane from the right

without signaling. The video then shows that Trooper Prestia changed lanes so that

he was directly behind the white car in the second lane from the right. The white

vehicle then crossed the left white line and went a significant distance into the

second lane from the left. When the white vehicle crossed over the white line, it

came very close to hitting another car that was traveling in the second lane from the

left. Trooper Prestia continued to follow the white car as it exited Interstate 71 and

entered Interstate 90 West. The dash-camera footage shows that the white car also

weaved several times within the lane it was traveling. Trooper Prestia activated his

overhead lights and stopped the white car.

Trooper Prestia approached the driver’s side of the vehicle. He asked

Goode for his driver’s license and told him why he pulled him over. Trooper Prestia

said that he could smell alcohol and burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle.

When Goode spoke, “the odor of alcoholic beverage became more apparent” from

Goode’s breath. Trooper Prestia said that both odors were coming from Goode’s person and the vehicle. Goode’s eyes were also bloodshot, and he was slurring his

speech.

Trooper Prestia asked Goode where he had been prior to being pulled

over, and Goode kept telling him that he and his passenger had been “traveling

somewhere.” Trooper Prestia said that Goode “did not answer the specific

questions” even after asking him “multiple times.”

Trooper Prestia learned that there was a felony warrant for Goode’s

arrest. He asked Goode to step out of his vehicle. Upon searching Goode, Trooper

Prestia found what he believed to be marijuana, although he said they never tested

it to confirm it. Trooper Prestia said that Goode refused a breath-alcohol test and

field-sobriety testing. Trooper Prestia arrested Goode for OVI.

The City also played Trooper Prestia’s body-camera footage. Trooper

Prestia walked up the driver’s side of the vehicle and asked Goode for his license.

Trooper Prestia told Goode that his “lights were off” and he was “swerving all over

the place.” He also told Goode that he was not wearing his seatbelt. Trooper Prestia

asked Goode where he and his passenger had been that night. Goode’s answer is not

clear on the video, but Trooper Prestia then asked Goode, “[W]here are you coming

from though?” Again, it is not clear what Goode said, but Trooper Prestia stated that

was not what he had asked him. After asking him several more times, Goode stated

that they were just driving around. Trooper Prestia asked Goode how long he had been drinking and if he had been “smoking weed” because it smelled like weed in

the car. The backseat passenger stated that she “smokes.”

The body-camera footage then shows Trooper Prestia asking Goode

to step out of his vehicle, which Goode did. Trooper Prestia told Goode that he had

a misdemeanor and felony warrant for his arrest. As Trooper Prestia was searching

Goode’s person, Goode was trying to figure out why he had a felony warrant for his

arrest. It was difficult to determine if Goode was slurring his words, but he was

difficult to understand at times. He also misspoke a few of his words and had to

correct himself. Trooper Prestia asked Goode if he would perform field-sobriety

tests and “blow into a breath test,” which Goode refused to do. At that point, Trooper

Prestia told Goode that he was under arrest for OVI.

At the close of all the evidence, Goode moved for a Crim.R. 29

acquittal, which the trial court denied.

The trial court found Goode not guilty of one of the OVI counts

(R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)) but guilty of the other three counts: OVI under

R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), operating a vehicle without lights, and not wearing a seat belt.

For OVI, the trial court sentenced Goode to 180 days in jail,

suspended 177 of them, and stated that Goode could complete a three-day driver-

intervention program in lieu of jail time. The trial court also imposed fines for all

three counts: $1000 for OVI, suspending $400 of it; $50 for operating a vehicle

without lights; and $30 for not wearing a seatbelt. The court also placed Goode on six months of probation with various conditions. It is from this judgment that

Goode now appeals.

II. Law and Analysis

In his sole assignment of error, Goode argues that his OVI conviction

was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the

prosecution has met its burden of production at trial, a manifest-weight challenge

questions whether the prosecution has met its burden of persuasion. State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390 (1997). Weight of the evidence addresses the

evidence’s “‘effect of inducing belief.’” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 387, quoting

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). “‘[E]ven if a trial judgment is sustained by

sufficient evidence, an appellate court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment

is against the manifest weight of the evidence.’” In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 14,

quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12.

When a defendant argues that his or her conviction is against the

manifest weight of the evidence, we “must weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in

resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created

such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new

trial ordered.” Id., citing id. at ¶ 20. “However, ‘[r]eversal on the manifest weight of the evidence and remand for a new trial are not to be taken lightly.’” Id. at ¶ 16,

quoting id. at ¶ 31.

Goode was convicted of OVI pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). This

provision states that “[n]o person shall operate any vehicle . . . if, at the time of the

operation . . . [t]he person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a

combination of them.” R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).

Goode argues that his OVI conviction was against the manifest weight

of the evidence because there was no evidence of field-sobriety testing, no witness

saw him drink alcohol or use marijuana, and he did not admit to using any

substance. After reviewing the City’s evidence, we disagree with Goode that his OVI

conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The trial court heard the testimony of Trooper Prestia. Trooper

Prestia testified that he first observed Goode entering the highway after midnight

without any lights on the vehicle. He then observed Goode change lanes without a

signal and weave inside and outside of his lane. When Trooper Prestia stopped

Goode’s vehicle and approached the driver’s side of the car, Trooper Prestia said that

he could smell alcohol and burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle. Trooper

Prestia further testified that when Goode spoke, “the odor of alcoholic beverage

became more apparent” from Goode’s breath. Indeed, Trooper Prestia clarified that

both odors were coming from Goode’s person and the vehicle.

Trooper Prestia also testified that Goode’s eyes were bloodshot, he

was slurring his speech, and he refused to answer questions about where he had been that evening. Upon searching Goode’s person, he found what he believed to be

marijuana in his pocket although they never tested it to confirm that it was

marijuana. Goode also refused to take a breath-alcohol test or perform field-

sobriety testing.

Field-sobriety or chemical tests are not required to prove an OVI

conviction. Cleveland v. Giering, 2017-Ohio-8059, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), citing Solon v.

Hrivnak, 2014-Ohio-3135, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). Indeed, any lay witness, including a

police officer, may testify as to whether an individual appeared intoxicated. State v.

Clark, 2007-Ohio-3777, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Schmitt, 2004-Ohio-37, ¶ 12,

citing Columbus v. Mullins, 162 Ohio St. 419, 421 (1954). To establish that a driver

of a vehicle is impaired, the prosecution may rely on physiological factors including

slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol. Hrivnak at ¶ 18, citing Clark

at ¶ 13. A fact finder may also consider evidence that a driver refused to submit to

field-sobriety or chemical testing as evidence of impairment. Maumee v. Anistik, 69

Ohio St.3d 339, 344 (1994); State v. Assefa, 2023-Ohio-385, ¶ 20 (1st Dist.); State

v. Holnapy, 2011-Ohio-2995, ¶ 61 (11th Dist.); State v. Vales, 2020-Ohio-245, ¶ 77

(5th Dist.).

The trial court also viewed the trooper’s dash-camera and body-

camera footage. These videos confirmed many of the facts that Trooper Prestia

testified to.

Goode further argues that Trooper Prestia’s testimony was not

credible. He asserts that the trooper’s body-camera footage shows him “moving steadily and speaking in a coherent manner.” He claims that because Trooper

Prestia told dispatch that Goode was not “falling over himself” and wondered

whether Goode may be under the influence of a drug instead of alcohol, that proves

that he lacked “reasonable suspicion that Goode was under the influence of

something.”

We disagree with Goode’s characterization of the video footage. The

footage shows that Goode entered the highway at night without any lights on the

vehicle, changed lanes without signaling, and crossed over the left white line a

significant distance, almost hitting another car that was in that lane. And although

the smell of alcohol and marijuana cannot be confirmed by the video, Goode did not

clearly answer Trooper Prestia’s questions about where he and his passenger had

been that evening. Goode’s speech was also difficult to understand, and he misspoke

a few times when talking to Trooper Prestia outside of his vehicle. And the video

confirms that Goode refused to take a breath-alcohol test or perform field-sobriety

testing.

After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that this was not “‘the

exceptional case in which the evidence weigh[ed] heavily against [Goode’s OVI]

conviction.’” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio

App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

Goode’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction

having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded to the trial

court for execution of sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR