State v. Miller

2026 Ohio 297

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 2025 CA 00062
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Miller, 2026-Ohio-297.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025 CA 00062

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2025 CR 0025 JONATHAN ERIC MILLER Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: January 30, 2026

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Andrew J. King; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: VICKI L. DE SANTIS, for Plaintiff-Appellee; BERNARD L. HUNT, for Defendant-Appellant.

King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jonathan Eric Miller appeals the May 12, 2025

judgment of conviction and sentence of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This matter involves two separate events. On October 2, 2024, Miller used

a St. Joseph's Federal Credit Union app to remotely deposit a check for $890. The check

was allegedly from a loan company. Miller then withdrew the funds.

{¶ 3} When the check bounced, Tonya Gaters, a collections worker from the

credit union contacted Miller. Miller initially stated he did not deposit the check, then later

stated he did. With the fine added for the bad check, Miller's account had a negative balance of $912. Miller advised Gaters he would take care of the negative balance, but

needed some time. He asked her to refrain from involving law enforcement. When Miller

failed to take care of the matter as promised, Gaters made a police report.

{¶ 4} The second matter took place on December 29, 2024. On that afternoon,

Stark County Sheriff's Deputy D'Metre House was dispatched to a Waco Market on

Waynesburg Drive Southeast in response to a report of man passed out in his car. Upon

arrival, the man was gone. Witnesses advised he had woken up and left, driving east on

17th Street.

{¶ 5} House proceeded in that direction and noticed a utility pole broken in half

and dangling from the wires at the intersection of 17th and Trump Ave. House was then

dispatched to the intersection of Indian Run and Mapleton on report of a vehicle crash.

{¶ 6} Upon arrival House found Miller unconscious behind the wheel of his

running car. The airbag was deployed, the car had heavy front-end damage, a dent on

the top, and the rear window was shattered.

{¶ 7} House attempted to rouse Miller by yelling at him from the driver's side of

the car, but Miller did not respond. House went to the passenger side, turned off the car,

and yelled again. This time Miller stirred. In speaking with Miller, House noted Miller was

slurring his words and was lethargic. Miller claimed his blood sugar was low. House called

emergency medical technicians to the scene to check him.

{¶ 8} While that was happening, Miller performed an inventory search of Miller's

vehicle prior to having it towed. Miller discovered a syringe loaded with heroin and an

envelope containing a rocklike substance later determined to be a fentanyl-related

compound. {¶ 9} Sergeant Chane Cline arrived while Miller was in the ambulance. The

paramedics on scene determined Miller did not have any medical condition or injury which

would require transport to the hospital. Cline spoke with Miller who admitted to taking

Xanex that he got from an unknown person. Miller was concerned there was something

else in the Xanex and told Cline he was "F'ed up."

{¶ 10} Deputy Paul Brown also arrived on the scene with Cline. In order to rule out

alcohol intoxication, Brown attempted to put Miller through field sobriety tests. Miller

nodded off while standing up and was unable to put one foot in front of the other when

directed to do so. Testing was therefore terminated.

{¶ 11} On April 23, 2025, the Stark County Grand Jury returned a superseding

indictment charging Miller as follows:

{¶ 12} Count one, possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6),

a felony of the fifth degree.

{¶ 13} Count two, possession of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A) and (C)(11), a felony of the fifth degree.

{¶ 14} Count three, operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of

abuse, or a combination of them in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), a misdemeanor of the

first degree.

{¶ 15} Count four, forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), a felony of the fifth

degree.

{¶ 16} Count five, passing bad checks in violation of R.C. 2913.11(B), a

misdemeanor of the first degree. {¶ 17} Count six, theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), a misdemeanor of the first

{¶ 18} Miller entered pleas of not guilty to the charges and elected to proceed to a

jury trial which took place on April 29, 2025. The State presented four witnesses and

elicited the above outlined evidence. Miller testified on his own behalf. He stated he had

been the victim of a loan scam in the credit union matter. As to the drug charges, Miller

admitted he had taken what he thought was Xanex on December 29, 2024 and admitted

he was intoxicated.

{¶ 19} After hearing the evidence and deliberating, the jury acquitted Miller of

forgery and passing bad checks, but found him guilty of the balance of the indictment.

Miller was subsequently sentenced to 120 days of local incarceration, three years of

community control, and restitution in the amount of $912. The trial court reserved a 12-

month prison sentence.

{¶ 20} Miller timely filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. He raises two assignments of error as follows.

I

{¶ 21} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF OPERATING A VEHICLE WHILE

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, DRUGS OR A COMBINATION OF THEM

WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, SO THE TRIAL

COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL ON THAT

CHARGE. " II

{¶ 22} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF OPERATING A VEHICLE WHILE

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, DRUGS, OR A COMBINATION OF THEM

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

I, II

{¶ 23} Because they are interrelated, we elect to address Miller's assignments of

error together. Miller challenges only his conviction for operating a vehicle under the

influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of them (OVI). He argues the trial court should

have granted his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal on the charge as it was unsupported by

sufficient evidence. He additionally argues the conviction is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. We disagree.

Standard of Review

{¶ 24} Crim.R. 29 governs motions for acquittal. Subsection (A) states the

following:

The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the

evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment

of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment,

information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a

conviction of such offense or offenses. The court may not reserve

ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the

state's case. {¶ 25} The standard to be employed by a trial court in determining a Crim.R. 29

motion is set out in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978), syllabus: "Pursuant to

Crim.R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is

such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material

element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

{¶ 26} Miller's argument raises a question of sufficiency. On review for sufficiency,

a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at trial to determine whether such evidence,

if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "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." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

{¶ 27} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire

record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of

witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must

be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st

Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a

new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs

heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175. Analysis

{¶ 28} Miller was charged with one count of OVI pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).

That section provides no person shall operate any motor vehicle while under the influence

of alcohol, a drug of abuse or a combination of them.

{¶ 29} Miller argues no blood, breath or urine tests were conducted in this matter

and that his behavior could have been explained by both his blood sugar and the fact that

he had just been in an accident.

{¶ 30} First, the statue does not require testing of blood, breath, or urine to support

a conviction for OVI.

{¶ 31} Next, Deputy House was dispatched to the Waco Market in response to

Miller passed out behind the wheel of his car before Miller struck the utility pole. Transcript

of trial (T.) 125.

{¶ 32} Third, Miller was examined by paramedics at the scene who determined

Miller had no medical conditions which required attention or transport to the hospital. T.

145. Additionally, drugs were found in Miller's car and he had track marks – needle

puncture wounds – on his arms indicative of intravenous drug use. T. 149. The heroin

was found loaded into a syringe and ready to inject. T. 133.

{¶ 33} Finally, Miller himself stated he had taken what he thought was Xanex that

got from "some guy." T. 147. He testified "I don't know what was in it. I was pretty messed

up." T. 170. He additionally testified his blood sugar was not the root cause but rather did

not help matters: "my blood sugar was all out of whack around that time and it did not

help anything. . ." T. 172. {¶ 34} Given the foregoing, we conclude the State produced sufficient evidence to

support Miller's OVI conviction and the trial court did not therefore err in overruling his

Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal.

{¶ 35} Miller additionally argues that because the State produced insufficient

evidence of OVI, that the jury therefore lost its way in convicting him of OVI. For all of the

foregoing reasons, however, we find the jury did not lose its way in convicting Miller of

OVI. Miller's manifest weight argument therefore fails.

{¶ 36} The first and second assignments of error are overruled.

{¶ 37} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the

Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

{¶ 38} Costs to Appellant.

By: King, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Gormley, J. concur.