State v. Thompson
This text of 2012 Ohio 600 (State v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2012-Ohio-600.]
COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case No. 2011AP080035 ANTHONY THOMPSON, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the New Philadelphia Municipal Court, Case No. 1001119AB
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 14, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GARRY O. HURLESS ANTHONY THOMPSON, JR., PRO SE P.O. Box 237 1694 State Route 39 NW New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663-0327 Dover, Ohio 44622 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP080035 2
Hoffman, P.J.
(¶1) Defendant-appellant Anthony Thompson Jr. appeals his conviction and
sentence entered by the New Philadelphia Municipal Court on one count of domestic
violence. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
(¶2) On August 17, 2010, Jessica Warfield called the Dover Police Department
to report an assault by Appellant. Warfield testified at trial in this matter Appellant
attempted to make a videotape of her, and she asked him to leave. When she
attempted to grab the camera and turn it off, Appellant grabbed her, threw her across
the room, pulled her hair and choked her. At the trial, the State presented the videotape
and several photographs depicting injuries to Warfield’s neck and leg.
(¶3) Following a bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of domestic violence, in
violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). The trial court sentenced Appellant to community control
sanctions in lieu of a thirty day jail term.
(¶4) Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
(¶5) “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
(¶6) “II. APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.”
I.
(¶7) In his first generally raised assigned error, Appellant maintains his
convictions are against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP080035 3
(¶8) 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 (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. “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 (1979), 443 U.S. 307. 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 (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. See also, State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–Ohio–52. 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.
(¶9) We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182,
certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881. The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view
the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not
translate well on the written page.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997–
Ohio–260.
(¶10) Appellant was convicted of 2919.25(A), which reads, “(A) No person shall
knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP080035 4
(¶11) The credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence are issues
primarily for the trial court, as the trier of fact. In re Ohler, Hocking App. No. 04CA8,
2005–Ohio–1583, ¶ 15, citing Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77,
80, 461 N.E.2d 1273. Accordingly, upon review of the evidence and testimony
presented at trial, the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction on the
charge. As set forth above, Jessica Warfield testified at trial Appellant grabbed her,
threw her across the room, pulled her hair and choked her. The State introduced
photographs depicting injuries to Warfield. Warfield testified at trial the photographs
depict injuries to her neck and legs caused by Appellant grabbing her and throwing her
down. We find the trier of fact weighed the evidence and judged the credibility of the
witnesses. Upon our review, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the trial
court’s verdict of guilty of the charge.
(¶12) The first assignment of error is sustained.
II.
(¶13) In the second assigned error, Appellant asserts his counsel was
ineffective in failing to challenge the testimony of the alleged victim, Jessica Warfield,
herein. Specifically, Appellant maintains Warfield’s testimony was contradictory and not
credible, and his counsel failed to challenge the testimony through cross-examination
utilizing valuable evidence in the form of photographs and videos available at trial.
Further, Appellant maintains his trial counsel failed to introduce important information
contained in the police reports. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP080035 5
(¶14) The standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is set out in State v.
Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus, certiorari
denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1011. Appellant must establish the following:
(¶15) “2. Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until
counsel's performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of
reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel's
performance. (State v. Lytle [1976], 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 2 O.O.3d 495, 358 N.E.2d 623;
Strickland v. Washington [1984], 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674,
followed.)
(¶16) “3. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel's deficient
performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a reasonable probability that,
were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different.”
(¶17) Based upon our analysis and disposition of the first assignment of error,
we do not find Appellant has demonstrated, but for the alleged errors of counsel, the
outcome of the trial would have been otherwise. The trial court had the opportunity to
view the videotape and the photographs presented and admitted at trial. The trial court
weighed the evidence and judged the credibility of the witnesses and the testimony. We
do not find counsel was ineffective in the cross-examination of Warfield. Appellant has
not demonstrated prejudice as a result of the alleged errors of trial counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-ohioctapp-2012.