State v. Simon

2025 Ohio 2042

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 2024CA0084-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Simon, 2025-Ohio-2042.]

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

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024CA0084-M

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ISAAC P. SIMON WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CRB2300332

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 9, 2025

STEVENSON, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant Isaac P. Simon appeals from the judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal

Court that found him guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, claiming

the judgment was not supported by the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence. This Court

affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Simon was charged with one count of failure to comply with an order or signal

of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), a first-degree misdemeanor. He pleaded not

guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.

{¶3} The State presented the testimony of Deputy Caylum Yorks of the Medina County

Sheriff’s Office. Deputy Yorks testified that he was working patrol duty when he “[t]ried to initiate

a traffic stop” of a vehicle that did not appear to have a displayed license plate. There is no dispute

that Mr. Simon was the driver of the vehicle. 2

{¶4} Deputy Yorks activated his cruiser’s overhead emergency lights to initiate the

traffic stop. He was directly behind Mr. Simon’s vehicle when the emergency lights were

activated. Mr. Simon responded by pulling onto the berm of the highway, over the rumble strips,

and slowing down by applying his brakes. After pulling onto the berm Mr. Simon then proceeded

to “merge back into traffic . . . .” Deputy Yorks activated the cruiser’s sirens, in addition to the

already activated overhead emergency lights, when Mr. Simon merged back into traffic.

{¶5} Deputy Yorks continued following Mr. Simon’s vehicle with the cruiser’s lights

and sirens activated. Mr. Simon again pulled onto the berm of the highway, crossing the rumble

strips and applying his brakes. Rather than stopping, Mr. Simon again merged back onto the

highway. As Mr. Simon pulled back onto the highway, Deputy Yorks wondered where the traffic

stop was going and why Mr. Simon was “running[.]” Deputy Yorks continued following Mr.

Simon with the cruiser’s lights and sirens activated.

{¶6} Mr. Simon pulled onto the berm and merged back into traffic, with Deputy Yorks

following him with the cruiser’s lights and siren activated, “three or four” times. This pattern

continued for “[j]ust shy of three-and-a-half miles” before Mr. Simon stopped and Deputy Yorks

was able to conduct a traffic stop.

{¶7} Deputy Yorks testified that he perceived Mr. Simon’s actions of pulling over and

then merging back onto the highway as a deliberate act. He testified that there was no valid reason

for Mr. Simon to keep merging back onto the highway as he had safely pulled to the side of the

road numerous times during the pursuit. Deputy Yorks testified that, in addition to repeatedly

pulling over and merging back onto the highway, he witnessed Mr. Simon speeding, following

other vehicles too closely, and cutting off other vehicles on the roadway. 3

{¶8} The dash camera video from Deputy Yorks’ cruiser was admitted as a trial exhibit

and is part of the record on appeal. Deputy Yorks testified to Mr. Simon’s driving pattern that is

seen on the dash camera video.

{¶9} Mr. Simon does not challenge or otherwise dispute his driving pattern of pulling

over and merging back onto the highway. He testified that he initially pulled onto the berm to “get

out of the way[,]” but that he “tried to move[]” because “there [was not] much room.” Mr. Simon

testified that “it was kind of a safety thing . . . I needed to make sure I was safe” when pulling over.

He maintains that he “was [not] trying to elude anything.”

{¶10} The trial court found Mr. Simon guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal

of a police officer. The court sentenced Mr. Simon to 30 days in jail, with all 30 days suspended

provided he pays a $150 fine and court costs and does not commit any similar offenses within one

year. Mr. Simon was given 60 days to pay the fine and court costs. A six-point violation was

placed on Mr. Simon’s license and his license was suspended for the mandatory minimum period

of six months. Mr. Simon appeals, asserting two assignments of error for this Court’s review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE [COURT’S] VERDICT OF GUILTY AS TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OFFICER.

{¶11} Mr. Simon argues in his first assignment of error that his conviction was not based

on sufficient evidence as a matter of law. We disagree.

{¶12} Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which

this Court reviews de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). “‘A challenge to

the sufficiency of the evidence concerns the State’s burden of production and is, in essence, a test

of adequacy.’” State v. Jennings, 2025-Ohio-727, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Wilk, 2023- 4

Ohio-112, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.); Thompkins at 386. “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “‘Although the standard of review is de novo, the

appellate court does not resolve evidentiary conflicts or assess the credibility of witnesses as those

functions belong to the trier of fact.’” Jennings at ¶ 18, quoting State v. Taylor, 2018-Ohio-2921,

¶ 27 (9th Dist.).

{¶13} Mr. Simon was convicted of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police

officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B). R.C. 2921.331(B) states that “[n]o person shall operate

a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible

signal from a police officer to bring the person's motor vehicle to a stop.” Addressing R.C.

2921.331(B), the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that the statute “merely requires proof that

a person willfully elude or flee a police officer who has given a signal to stop.” State v. Fairbanks,

2008-Ohio-1470, ¶ 9. A defendant’s state of mind may be inferred from the totality of the

surrounding circumstances. See State v. Evans, 2023-Ohio-4838, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.).

{¶14} A violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) is a first-degree misdemeanor unless certain

circumstances exist that elevate the offense to a more serious degree. R.C. 2921.331(C)(3).

Neither party has presented an enhancement issue on appeal.

{¶15} As it pertains to sufficiency, Mr. Simon acknowledges that he “did not immediately

pull over and stop.” He contends that “rather than fleeing he was merely trying to find a safe place

to pull over and stop.” The State argues that it presented sufficient evidence to sustain the

conviction. 5

{¶16} Deputy Yorks testified that Mr. Simon appeared to be pulling over when he first

activated the overhead emergency lights on his cruiser. Mr. Simon pulled onto the berm of the

highway, over the rumble strip, and slowed down by applying his brakes. Rather than stopping,

Mr. Simon merged back onto the highway. At that point Deputy Yorks wondered why Mr. Simon

was “running[.]” Deputy Yorks then continued following Mr. Simon with both the siren and

overhead emergency lights activated on the cruiser. Deputy Yorks testified that, in addition to

repeatedly pulling over and merging back onto the highway, he witnessed Mr. Simon speeding,

following other vehicles too closely, and cutting off other vehicles on the roadway

{¶17} Mr. Simon continued the pattern of pulling onto the berm and applying his brakes,

and then merging back into traffic, “three or four” times and over a distance of “[j]ust shy of three-

and-a-half miles." Deputy Yorks testified that Mr. Simon had repeatedly safely pulled onto the

berm. He also testified that he perceived Mr. Simon’s actions of pulling onto the berm and

applying the vehicle’s brakes to slow down as deliberate actions.

{¶18} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and upon a

thorough examination of the record, this Court concludes that there is sufficient evidence upon

which the trial court could reasonably conclude that all elements of failure to comply with an order

or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) were established beyond a reasonable

doubt. Assignment of error number one is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II

[MR. SIMON’S] CONVICTION AS TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OFFICER WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 6

{¶19} Mr. Simon argues in his second assignment of error that his failure to comply with

an order or signal of a police officer conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

For the reasons set forth below, this assignment of error is overruled.

{¶20} “‘When considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, this Court applies a different standard than in a sufficiency analysis.’” State v. Evans,

2023-Ohio-4838, ¶ 29 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Zappa, 2022-Ohio-243, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). To

evaluate the weight of the evidence, this Court must consider the entire record and “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.” Evans at ¶ 29,

citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.

{¶21} Mr. Simon argues he was not trying to flee and that he was simply trying to find a

safe place to pull over. He argues that, considering his testimony, his conviction is against the

manifest weight of the evidence. The State contends that the failure to comply with an order or

signal of a police officer conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶22} Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that this is an exceptional case

where the trial court lost its way by convicting Mr. Simon. See Otten at 340. There is no dispute

that Deputy Yorks was following Mr. Simon with the cruiser’s overhead emergency lights and

sirens activated and that Mr. Simon engaged in a pattern of pulling onto the berm, slowing down,

and then merging back onto the highway. Deputy Yorks wondered why Mr. Simon was

“running[.]” Mr. Simon pulled onto the berm, slowed down and then merged back on the highway 7

“three or four” times. Deputy Yorks also testified that there was no need for Mr. Simon to pull

back onto the highway as he had safely pulled onto the berm multiple times. He also testified that

the act of pulling onto the berm, slowing down by applying the brakes, and then proceeding to

merge back onto the highway multiple times was a deliberate act.

{¶23} It is well-established that “a trier of fact enjoys the best position to assess the

credibility of witnesses.” State v. Tyus, 2020-Ohio-4455, ¶ 57 (9th Dist.). This Court “‘will not

overturn a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the trier

of fact chose to believe the State’s version of events over another version.’” State v. Tolliver, 2017-

Ohio-4214, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Barger, 2016-Ohio-443, ¶ 29 (9th Dist.).

{¶24} Upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly

lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring a reversal of Mr. Simon’s failure

to comply with an order or signal of a police officer conviction. See Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d at

340. This is not an exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.

See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. Mr. Simon’s manifest weight of the evidence argument, as

asserted in his second assignment of error, is overruled.

III.

{¶25} For the reasons stated above, Mr. Simon’s assignments of error are overruled. The

judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 8

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

Court, County of Medina, 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.

SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ERIC D. HALL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

JARED C. ROBERTS, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellee.