State v. Mills

2026 Ohio 701

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 25CA012266
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mills, 2026-Ohio-701.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25CA012266

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE MICHAEL MILLS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 23CR110249

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 2, 2026

HENSAL, Judge.

{¶1} Michael Mills appeals his convictions for assault and felonious assault by the

Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} According to Z.R., after being out at a bar with Mr. Mills the night before

Thanksgiving, they drove back to her house separately. While Z.R. began to prepare for the

holiday, she argued with Mr. Mills about the way he treats her compared to other women. They

ended up outside, where the argument continued. Eventually, Mr. Mills became angry and

punched her in the face. Z.R. fell to the ground and blacked out briefly. When she recovered

consciousness, Mr. Mills punched her a few more times in the face, then walked to his car. Z.R.

attempted to go after him, but her ankle gave out and she fell again, causing part of her body to lie

under Mr. Mills’s car. He backed out anyway, running over her arms. 2

{¶3} The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Mills on two counts of felonious assault and one count

of assault, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. According to Mr. Mills, he never punched

Z.R. He testified that she had been drinking a lot that evening and slipped on the grass while

chasing after him, falling and hitting her head on the concrete driveway. He denied running over

her, alleging that her body was not close to his car. The court found Mr. Mills guilty of one count

of felonious assault and the assault count, which it merged. It sentenced him to a minimum of

three years imprisonment. Mr. Mills has appealed, assigning as error that his convictions are

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE CONVICTIONS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶4} Mr. Mills argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the

evidence. When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court is

required to consider 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 trier

of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.

1986). “A reversal on this basis is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs

heavily against the conviction.” State v. Croghan, 2019-Ohio-3970, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.).

{¶5} Mr. Mills argues that Z.R.’s testimony was not credible. He notes that she admitted

having five beers while at the bar and did not mention losing consciousness or being run over to

the medical personnel who treated her at the hospital. He alleges that she was inconsistent at trial 3

about whether her nose was broken, about whether her watch broke, and about whether she could

move her left arm after the incident. He also notes that an expert witness testified that there was

no evidence that Z.R. had been run over by a car. On the other hand, Z.R. admitted that she was

angry at him and that she pursued him while he was attempting to leave. She also has a history of

passing out because of a medical condition.

{¶6} The State presented medical records that established that Z.R. had an ankle fracture.

Z.R. testified that she did not have the fracture before Mr. Mills punched her and that she first

noticed pain in her ankle when she tried to stand up after he knocked her out. She also claimed

that the pain in her ankle was the reason she fell again as she tried to pursue him. Z.R. testified

that she first went to the hospital for her ankle, but after she returned home, she continued to have

pain all over her body, especially in her arm, so she returned to the hospital for additional

evaluation. She explained that, when she said that her watch broke, it was only the band of the

watch. She also explained that, when she said that her nose was broken, she was referring to the

skin that photographs show had been scraped away from it. She further explained that, when she

said she could not move her arm, she meant that she could not move it without a lot of pain.

{¶7} As the trier of fact, the court was “free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony

of each witness.” Prince v. Jordan, 2004-Ohio-7184, ¶ 35 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Jackson, 86

Ohio App.3d 29, 33 (4th Dist. 1993). It was within the province of the court to reconcile any

inconsistencies in Z.R.’s and Mr. Mills’s testimony because it was present to “view witnesses and

observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the

credibility of the proffered testimony.” State v. Cook, 2003-Ohio-727, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.), quoting

Giurbino v. Giurbino, 89 Ohio App.3d 646, 659 (8th Dist. 1993). “A conviction is not against the 4

manifest weight because the [trier of fact] chose to credit the State’s version of events.” State v.

Peasley, 2010-Ohio-4333, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.).

{¶8} Upon review of the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court lost its way when it

found Mr. Mills guilty of felonious assault and assault and that a new trial is necessary to prevent

a manifest miscarriage of justice. Mr. Mills’s assignment of error is overruled.

III.

{¶9} Mr. Mills’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT 5

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

DENISE G. WILMS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ANTHONY CILLO, Prosecuting Attorney, and LINDSEY C. POPROCKI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.