[Cite as State v. Jeffries, 2025-Ohio-2983.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240695 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/18338/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY DONTAE JEFFRIES, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/20/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Jeffries, 2025-Ohio-2983.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240695 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/18338/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : OPINION DONTAE JEFFRIES, :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 20, 2025
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert E. Rickey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Law Office of Roger W. Kirk and Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dontae Jeffries appeals from the Hamilton County
Municipal Court’s judgment convicting him of failure to comply with an order of a
police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331. Jeffries asserts one assignment of error for
our review, arguing that his conviction is based on insufficient evidence and is against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding Jeffries’s argument to be without merit,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Jeffries was charged with obstructing official business under R.C.
2921.31 and failure to comply with an order of a police officer under R.C. 2921.331.
{¶3} The evidence presented at a bench trial established that, on October 24,
2024, Jeffries was the front-seat passenger in a vehicle that was the subject of a traffic
stop conducted by Cincinnati Police Officers Samuel Myres and Samuel Bailey. Officer
Myres testified that he recognized the driver of the car from previous interactions and
was aware that she lacked a valid license. He also recognized Jeffries from a previous
incident in which Jeffries had pointed a firearm at individuals at an intersection, ran
from the police, and then tossed the firearm. This prior incident led Officer Myres to
fear that Jeffries may have been armed during the traffic stop, and he informed the
other officers on the scene about this previous incident.
{¶4} Officer Bailey testified that he stood on the passenger side of the vehicle
and observed Jeffries while Officer Myres filled out the paperwork for the traffic stop
on the driver’s side of the car. Officer Bailey observed that Jeffries “seemed nervous,”
and he alerted Officer Myres.
{¶5} Officer Myres testified that he asked Jeffries to exit the vehicle, but that
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Jeffries did not initially comply.1 The passenger door was opened, although both
officers testified that they could not remember how it came to be opened or who
opened it. Both officers again asked Jeffries multiple times to exit the vehicle.
According to Officer Myres, Jeffries ignored them and said “wait” while he looked at
his phone. Jeffries then put one foot out of the car but continued to look at his phone
rather than exit the vehicle. Officer Bailey testified that this noncompliance from
Jeffries lasted about 15 to 20 seconds.
{¶6} The officers’ testimony established that they pulled Jeffries from the
vehicle, handcuffed him, and searched him. Officer Myres testified that he asked
Jeffries “if he had anything on him,” and that Jeffries disclosed that he had marijuana.
During the pat down, Officer Myres found a bindle of marijuana in Jeffries’s pocket.
Officer Bailey placed Jeffries into the back of an officer cargo van, but Jeffries stuck
his knee out of the van door, restricting the door from closing.
{¶7} Once Jeffries was in the back of the van, Officer Myres sat in the front
seat to fill out paperwork. He noticed in the vehicle’s camera that Jeffries was
attempting to reach for something under his body. Officer Myres, with assistance from
a fellow officer, pulled Jeffries out of the van to be further searched, and a BB gun was
found in his pants. Officers then placed Jeffries in another police vehicle and
transported him to jail.
{¶8} The trial court found Jeffries not guilty of obstructing official business
under R.C. 2921.31 and guilty of failure to comply with an order of a police officer
under R.C. 2921.331. Jeffries now appeals.
1 Footage from Officer Myres’s body-worn camera that captured this incident was played at trial,
but it was not admitted into evidence, and it consequently is not available for our review.
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
II. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Jeffries argues that his conviction for
failure to comply was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶10} When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “the
relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Cleaned up.) State v. Walker, 2016-Ohio-
8295, ¶ 12.
{¶11} A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, on the other hand,
requires this court to “review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the
credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way
and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Powell, 2020-Ohio-4283, ¶ 16
(1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶12} The offense of failure to comply is set forth in R.C. 2921.331(A). It
provides that “[n]o person shall fail to comply with any lawful order or direction of any
police officer invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.” R.C.
2921.331(A).
{¶13} R.C. 2921.331(A) does not specify the mens rea needed to commit the
misdemeanor offense of failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer.
Pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(C)(1), “[w]hen language defining an element of an offense
that is related to knowledge or intent or to which mens rea could fairly be applied
neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability,
the element of the offense is established only if a person acts recklessly.” Recklessness
is defined in R.C. 2901.22(C), which provides that “[a] person acts recklessly when,
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
with heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Jeffries, 2025-Ohio-2983.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240695 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/18338/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY DONTAE JEFFRIES, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/20/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Jeffries, 2025-Ohio-2983.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240695 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/18338/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : OPINION DONTAE JEFFRIES, :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 20, 2025
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert E. Rickey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Law Office of Roger W. Kirk and Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dontae Jeffries appeals from the Hamilton County
Municipal Court’s judgment convicting him of failure to comply with an order of a
police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331. Jeffries asserts one assignment of error for
our review, arguing that his conviction is based on insufficient evidence and is against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding Jeffries’s argument to be without merit,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Jeffries was charged with obstructing official business under R.C.
2921.31 and failure to comply with an order of a police officer under R.C. 2921.331.
{¶3} The evidence presented at a bench trial established that, on October 24,
2024, Jeffries was the front-seat passenger in a vehicle that was the subject of a traffic
stop conducted by Cincinnati Police Officers Samuel Myres and Samuel Bailey. Officer
Myres testified that he recognized the driver of the car from previous interactions and
was aware that she lacked a valid license. He also recognized Jeffries from a previous
incident in which Jeffries had pointed a firearm at individuals at an intersection, ran
from the police, and then tossed the firearm. This prior incident led Officer Myres to
fear that Jeffries may have been armed during the traffic stop, and he informed the
other officers on the scene about this previous incident.
{¶4} Officer Bailey testified that he stood on the passenger side of the vehicle
and observed Jeffries while Officer Myres filled out the paperwork for the traffic stop
on the driver’s side of the car. Officer Bailey observed that Jeffries “seemed nervous,”
and he alerted Officer Myres.
{¶5} Officer Myres testified that he asked Jeffries to exit the vehicle, but that
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Jeffries did not initially comply.1 The passenger door was opened, although both
officers testified that they could not remember how it came to be opened or who
opened it. Both officers again asked Jeffries multiple times to exit the vehicle.
According to Officer Myres, Jeffries ignored them and said “wait” while he looked at
his phone. Jeffries then put one foot out of the car but continued to look at his phone
rather than exit the vehicle. Officer Bailey testified that this noncompliance from
Jeffries lasted about 15 to 20 seconds.
{¶6} The officers’ testimony established that they pulled Jeffries from the
vehicle, handcuffed him, and searched him. Officer Myres testified that he asked
Jeffries “if he had anything on him,” and that Jeffries disclosed that he had marijuana.
During the pat down, Officer Myres found a bindle of marijuana in Jeffries’s pocket.
Officer Bailey placed Jeffries into the back of an officer cargo van, but Jeffries stuck
his knee out of the van door, restricting the door from closing.
{¶7} Once Jeffries was in the back of the van, Officer Myres sat in the front
seat to fill out paperwork. He noticed in the vehicle’s camera that Jeffries was
attempting to reach for something under his body. Officer Myres, with assistance from
a fellow officer, pulled Jeffries out of the van to be further searched, and a BB gun was
found in his pants. Officers then placed Jeffries in another police vehicle and
transported him to jail.
{¶8} The trial court found Jeffries not guilty of obstructing official business
under R.C. 2921.31 and guilty of failure to comply with an order of a police officer
under R.C. 2921.331. Jeffries now appeals.
1 Footage from Officer Myres’s body-worn camera that captured this incident was played at trial,
but it was not admitted into evidence, and it consequently is not available for our review.
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
II. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Jeffries argues that his conviction for
failure to comply was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶10} When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “the
relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Cleaned up.) State v. Walker, 2016-Ohio-
8295, ¶ 12.
{¶11} A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, on the other hand,
requires this court to “review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the
credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way
and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Powell, 2020-Ohio-4283, ¶ 16
(1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶12} The offense of failure to comply is set forth in R.C. 2921.331(A). It
provides that “[n]o person shall fail to comply with any lawful order or direction of any
police officer invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.” R.C.
2921.331(A).
{¶13} R.C. 2921.331(A) does not specify the mens rea needed to commit the
misdemeanor offense of failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer.
Pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(C)(1), “[w]hen language defining an element of an offense
that is related to knowledge or intent or to which mens rea could fairly be applied
neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability,
the element of the offense is established only if a person acts recklessly.” Recklessness
is defined in R.C. 2901.22(C), which provides that “[a] person acts recklessly when,
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
with heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial
and unjustifiable risk that the person’s conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is
likely to be of a certain nature.”
{¶14} Jeffries does not argue that the officers’ orders were not lawful. Police
officers have the right to remove an occupant from a vehicle during a traffic stop. After
lawfully stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, officers may order the driver of the
vehicle to exit it without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-4365, ¶ 13. “An
officer needs no justification beyond that necessary for the initial stop to order a driver
from the car.” Id. An officer may order a driver and passengers to exit a vehicle during
a lawful traffic stop without additional suspicion of criminal activity, as this is a
minimal intrusion to ensure officer safety. State v. Ballein, 2025-Ohio-1240, ¶ 30-31
(4th Dist.).
{¶15} Officers Myres and Bailey testified that Jeffries was given orders to step
out of the vehicle, and that he did not comply and ignored their requests. The evidence
at trial showed that Jeffries was aware of the orders to exit the vehicle and refused to
comply.
{¶16} Jeffries argues on appeal that taking 15 to 20 seconds to exit a car does
not constitute a reckless failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer.
{¶17} R.C. 2921.331 does not specify an explicit time requirement that an
offender must be given to comply with an officer’s lawful order. Rather, it only requires
that the offender recklessly fail to comply with a lawful order.
{¶18} Jeffries was given repeated orders from Officer Myres and Officer Bailey
to exit the vehicle and did not comply for 15 to 20 seconds. Instead, he remained in
the vehicle and looked at his phone, telling the officers to “wait.” He then stepped one
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
foot out of the vehicle, but instead of exiting, continued to look at his phone.
{¶19} We hold that this was sufficient evidence that Jeffries acted with
“heedless indifference” to the consequences of his actions. The evidence showed
Jeffries heard the officers’ unambiguous orders to exit the vehicle. Any person would
have known that there was a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that failing to
promptly exit the vehicle and remaining on their phone would have constituted a
failure to comply with those commands. The evidence showed that Jeffries
disregarded that risk by choosing not to exit the car, and it was therefore sufficient to
show that he was, at a minimum, reckless.
{¶20} Jeffries’s conviction was also not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. The trial court was entitled to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to
believe the officers’ testimony that Jeffries failed to comply with their order to exit the
vehicle. See State v. Washington, 2019-Ohio-2215, ¶ 53 (8th Dist.). This is not the rare
case in which the trial court lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of
justice in convicting Jeffries. See Powell, 2020-Ohio-4283, at ¶ 16 (1st Dist.).
{¶21} Having concluded that Jeffries’s conviction for failure to comply was
supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, we overrule his assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., concur.