State v. McCollum

2026 Ohio 393

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: CA2025-07-019
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. McCollum, 2026-Ohio-393.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

FAYETTE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-07-019 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 2/9/2026 TYREESE S. McCOLLUM, :

Appellant. :

:

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 20250041

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Steven H. Eckstein, for appellant.

____________ OPINION

PIPER, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Tyreese S. McCollum, appeals his conviction in the Fayette

County Court of Common Pleas, where a jury found him guilty of felonious assault,

discharging a firearm on a public roadway, and improper handling of a firearm while in a

motor vehicle. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm McCollum's conviction. Fayette CA2025-07-019

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On April 4, 2025, the Fayette County Grand Jury returned a six-count

indictment against McCollum. The six indicted charges were (1) first-degree felony

attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2903.02(A) and (D);1 (2) second-

degree felony felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)/(D)(1)(a);2 (3) third-

degree felony having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C.

2923.13(A)(2)/(B); (4) third-degree felony discharging a firearm upon a public roadway in

violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(2); (5) third-degree felony tampering with

evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)/(B); and (6) fourth-degree felony improper

handling of a firearm while in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(A).

{¶ 3} The charges stemmed from a road-rage incident between McCollum and

the victim on the afternoon of February 6, 2025. The incident occurred while both

McCollum and the victim were traveling northbound on I-71 from Greene County into

Fayette County, Ohio. McCollum was arraigned on April 7, 2025, and entered a plea of

not guilty to all six charges. After McCollum entered his not guilty plea, the trial court set

McCollum's bond at $2,000,000 cash/surety.

{¶ 4} On July 10, 2025, a one-day jury trial was held on the matter. During the

trial, the jury heard testimony from seven witnesses, including the victim. The victim

testified that on February 6, 2025, he was driving his pickup truck northbound on a two-

lane stretch of I-71 when he came up behind an SUV in the left lane traveling below the

posted 70 mph speed limit. He further testified that, upon coming up behind the slower-

moving SUV, he flashed his headlights at the SUV "for it to hopefully move over to the

1. This charge also included two attached specifications, one a firearm specification and the other a repeat violent offender specification.

2. This charge also included two attached specifications, one a firearm specification and the other a repeat violent offender specification. -2- Fayette CA2025-07-019

right" and allow him to pass. The SUV did not move over. The victim testified that he then

waited for an opportunity to overtake the SUV on the right, which took some time given

that "everyone" else was also attempting to maneuver around the slower-moving SUV.

{¶ 5} The victim testified that after passing the SUV on the right and moving his

pickup truck back into the left lane in front of the SUV, the SUV then "picked up speed

and aggressively was trying to repass [him]" as he continued traveling northbound in the

left-hand lane. The victim further testified that despite the SUV's attempts to pass him for

several minutes by "swerving into the right lane and then over into the left berm," he did

not permit the SUV to pass. The victim explained that he did so by "swerving left and right

preventing it from being able to pass at that time."

{¶ 6} The victim testified that the SUV then "backed off" for approximately five

minutes. The victim testified that after those five minutes had elapsed, and upon his return

to the right-hand lane, the victim testified that he observed in his driver's-side mirror the

SUV approaching him once again in the left lane. The victim testified that the SUV then

passed him on the left, "[a]t which point, the passenger window was rolled down and a

black individual had brandished a firearm."

{¶ 7} The victim testified that, upon seeing this individual pointing a firearm at him

from approximately four or five feet away, he then watched as the man "racked" the gun

in his left hand. The victim testified that he then "applied the brakes and, while doing so,

that individual leaned and turned his torso around and fired approximately five shots at

[him] with a black pistol handgun." When asked why he believed those five shots were

fired at him rather than just up in the air as a warning, the victim testified that he "saw a

muzzle pointed at [him]," that he "saw a muzzle flash," that the "fire [came] out of the end

of the barrel," and that he "heard the firearm go off." The victim then testified and positively

identified McCollum as the shooter.

-3- Fayette CA2025-07-019

{¶ 8} The victim testified that, once the shooting had stopped, he called 9-1-1 to

report the shooting and to provide police with the mile marker where the shooting had

occurred. He further testified that he then stayed on the line with 9-1-1 until the police

initiated a traffic stop of the SUV in question. The victim testified that he then pulled over

approximately 100 feet behind the police cruiser that had initiated the traffic stop on the

SUV. The victim testified that he then watched as the police pulled a Black man out of the

SUV's front passenger-side door. He further testified that this man, the one he had just

seen police pulling out of the SUV's front passenger-side door, was the same man that

he had observed just a short time before, pointing a gun at him from approximately four

to five feet away. There is no dispute that this man was McCollum.

{¶ 9} The police later discovered a stolen firearm and several spent shell casings

along the side of northbound I-71 in the area where the victim testified that the shooting

had taken place. McCollum does not dispute that he had tossed the stolen firearm

discovered by police out of the SUV's front passenger-side window sometime after the

shooting was alleged to have occurred. The jury thereafter deliberated and returned a

verdict finding McCollum not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of felonious assault,

having weapons while under disability, discharging a firearm upon a public roadway,

tampering with evidence, and improper handling of a firearm while in a motor vehicle.

Upon polling the jury and accepting its verdicts, the trial court then scheduled the matter

for sentencing.

{¶ 10} On July 14, 2025, the trial court held that previously scheduled sentencing

hearing. During that hearing, the court sentenced McCollum to a total aggregate term of

24 to 28 years in prison, 11 of which are mandatory, less 159 days of jail-time credit. The

court also advised McCollum that he would be subject to a mandatory minimum term of

18 months to a maximum term of three years of postrelease control following his release

-4- Fayette CA2025-07-019

from prison. The following day, July 15, 2025, the court issued its judgment entry of

conviction and sentence. McCollum then filed a notice of appeal. After the parties' briefing,

on January 7, 2026, McCollum's appeal was submitted to this court for consideration.

McCollum's appeal is now properly before this court for decision. To support his appeal,

McCollum has raised one assignment of error for review.

McCollum's Single Assignment of Error for Review

{¶ 11} DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR FELONIOUS

ASSAULT, DISCHARGE OF FIREARM-PUBLIC ROADWAY, AND IMPROPERLY

HANDLING FIREARMS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 12} In his sole assignment of error, McCollum argues that the jury's verdicts

finding him guilty of felonious assault, discharging a firearm on a public roadway, and

improper handling of a firearm while in a motor vehicle are against the manifest weight of

the evidence. We disagree.

{¶ 13} "A verdict can be against the manifest weight of the evidence even though

legally sufficient evidence supports it." State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 207. This is

because, unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, which addresses the

State's burden of production, the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review

applies to the State's burden of persuasion. State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26.

When determining whether a jury's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence,

this court, sitting as the "thirteenth juror," first reviews the entire record, weighs the

evidence and all reasonable inferences, and considers the credibility of the witnesses

who testified at trial. State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804, ¶ 30.

{¶ 14} Following this review, we determine, in resolving any conflicts in the

evidence, whether the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of

-5- Fayette CA2025-07-019

justice that requires reversal of the jury's verdict and ordering a new trial. State v. Jordan,

2023-Ohio-3800, ¶ 17. Such a determination is rare, arising only in exceptional cases in

which the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily against the jury's verdict. State v.

Nkoyi, 2024-Ohio-3144, ¶ 41 (12th Dist.). This may occur only when there is unanimous

disagreement with the jury's verdict. See Jordan, citing Ohio Constitution, Article IV,

Section 3(B)(3) ("No judgment resulting from a trial by jury shall be reversed on the weight

of the evidence except by the concurrence of all three judges hearing the cause.").

{¶ 15} As noted above, McCollum argues that the jury's verdicts finding him guilty

of felonious assault, discharging a firearm upon a public roadway, and improper handling

of a firearm while in a motor vehicle are against the manifest weight of the evidence. This

is because, according to McCollum, the record is devoid of any "hard evidence" proving

that he ever discharged a firearm at the victim in this case. To support this claim,

McCollum notes that neither the victim nor the victim's pickup truck was struck by any of

the five bullets he was alleged to have fired at the victim from "almost" point-blank range.

McCollum also argues that although gunshot residue was found on his left hand, that

does not necessarily mean he was "the one who fired a firearm at the pickup." McCollum

instead argues that, despite the absence of any supporting evidence in the record, the

positive test result may have been caused by his touching something near a recently

discharged firearm shortly before the testing of his hands had occurred.

{¶ 16} McCollum further argues that, even if he had discharged a firearm at the

victim, as the victim alleged, it is "unlikely" that he would have done so with "only his left

hand." He contends that he would have instead used both hands. McCollum argues that

this would have resulted in gunshot residue being found on both his left and right hands

if he had "fired five shots right next to the pickup." This is in addition to McCollum arguing

that the jury verdicts are against the manifest weight of the evidence because the record

-6- Fayette CA2025-07-019

contains "little corroboration" of the victim's trial testimony positively identifying him as the

shooter. Therefore, although he admits to having discarded the stolen firearm that was

later discovered by police, rather than this being his attempt to get rid of evidence,

McCollum argues that "it is just as likely that [he] threw [the] stolen handgun out of the

auto's window" because he "did not want to be found with a weapon in his possession

while he was under a disability."

{¶ 17} We find no merit in any of McCollum's arguments, whether considered

individually or collectively. Instead, we find that the record contains overwhelming

competent and credible evidence supporting the jury's verdicts finding him guilty of

felonious assault, discharging a firearm upon a public roadway, and improper handling of

a firearm while in a motor vehicle. This includes the victim's testimony that he saw

McCollum brandish and then point a gun directly at him from approximately four to five

feet away. It also includes the victim's testimony that, after McCollum "racked" the gun in

his left hand, McCollum then fired the gun at him between four and five times. Given its

verdict, the jury clearly found the victim's testimony credible. This was not error for it is

well established that "a verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply

because the jury believed the State's witnesses." State v. Harsha, 2025-Ohio-4611, ¶ 20

(4th Dist.).

{¶ 18} In so holding, we note that, despite McCollum's assertions to the contrary,

the fact that neither the victim nor the victim's pickup truck was struck during the shooting

does not mean that no shooting occurred. It also does not mean that the jury's verdicts

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury's verdicts are likewise not

against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because gunshot residue was found

only on McCollum's left hand. That finding simply means that, given the jury's verdict, the

jury found the victim's testimony that McCollum had shot at him with his left hand credible.

-7- Fayette CA2025-07-019

This was well within the jury's purview as the trier of fact and the ultimate factfinder, State

v. Eads, 2025-Ohio-2815, ¶ 10, for it is well established that "the decision whether, and

to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses is within the peculiar

competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the witness." State v. Bedsole,

2022-Ohio-3693, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.). Therefore, because this is not one of those

exceptionally rare cases where extraordinary circumstances would lead this court to

question the legitimacy of the jury's verdicts, McCollum's single assignment of error lacks

merit and is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶ 19} For the reasons outlined above, McCollum's appeal of the jury's verdicts

finding him guilty of felonious assault, discharging a firearm on a public roadway, and

improper handling of a firearm while in a motor vehicle is denied.

{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.

M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur.

-8- Fayette CA2025-07-019

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

-9-