James Terry Howell, Jr. appeals his conviction for domestic violence, a third-degree felony, following a jury trial. The incident occurred early in the morning on September 30, 2014, when Ryan Rider was awakened by screams outside his home. He observed a woman on a neighbor's porch, visibly frightened, as a man (later identified as Howell) pulled at her and a child she was holding. Rider called 9-1-1, as did neighbor Sherry Cornelius, who heard the commotion and a muffled plea for help.
Elishalin Robinson, Howell's partner and mother of two of his children, testified that she did not recall Howell hitting her but woke up bleeding and panicked. Although she had initially reported to police and paramedics that Howell punched her, she later suggested her injuries were due to her medication. Robinson claimed to have no memory of calling for help or running to neighbors for assistance.
Canton Police Officer Eric Lee found Robinson, who matched the description of a distressed woman chased by a man. She told Lee that Howell had attacked her while she was asleep. Responding firefighter and paramedic James Dull noted Robinson's emotional distress and facial injuries, confirming she was not under the influence. She described how Howell had punched her in the face, resulting in her injuries before being transported to the hospital for treatment.
Robinson acknowledged her anger towards Howell due to his affair and revealed her mental health issues, including PTSD, ADHD, and manic-depression, while also disclosing her consumption of alcohol on the incident night and recent side effects from Paxil, including unexplained bleeding. Following Howell's conviction for domestic violence, the trial court sentenced him to 36 months in prison, consecutive to another sentence. Howell raised two assignments of error: (1) claiming the conviction was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) asserting his sentence was contrary to law.
In addressing the first assignment, the appellate court reviews evidence sufficiency based on the Jackson v. Virginia standard, determining if any rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence pertains to the credibility and persuasive effect of the evidence presented at trial, where the jury's verdict must be supported by the greater amount of credible evidence. An appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror" when reversing a trial judgment on weight grounds, requiring a clear misjudgment by the jury that indicates a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasizes that any judgment is presumed to be correct, and evidence with multiple interpretations should favor the verdict and judgment in question.
To establish Howell's guilt for domestic violence, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a family or household member, as defined by R.C. 2919.25(A). Physical harm includes any injury or physiological impairment. A family or household member encompasses a spouse or a person living as a spouse, which includes those in a common law relationship or cohabiting within five years prior to the alleged act (R.C. 2919.25(F)). Howell does not contest the status of Robinson as a family or household member. He argues, however, that the state failed to prove he caused or attempted to cause physical harm, citing Robinson's testimony that he was calming her and that her injuries were due to sleepwalking and medication, not his actions.
Contrarily, neighbors testified they observed Robinson, frightened and calling for help, and one reported seeing Howell acting aggressively towards her, prompting a 9-1-1 call. Robinson's own 9-1-1 call revealed her distress, and she admitted to telling police and hospital staff that Howell had punched her, resulting in facial contusions. Photographic evidence of a bloody couch was also presented. The evidence, when viewed in favor of the prosecution, indicated that a reasonable person could find Howell guilty of domestic violence, leading to the conclusion that the state met its burden of proof for the conviction.
As an appellate court, the role is to evaluate whether there is relevant, competent, and credible evidence for the fact finder’s judgment, rather than to assess evidence or witness credibility. Judgments supported by competent evidence on all essential elements will not be reversed for being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Ohio Supreme Court mandates that all reasonable presumptions favor the judgment and the fact findings. The trial court is considered best positioned to assess witness credibility. The reviewing court must avoid replacing the original trier of fact's judgment unless it is clear that the fact finder acted irrationally. In cases with conflicting reasonable interpretations of evidence, the appellate court does not choose between them. The jury, as the trier of fact, can accept or reject evidence and determine witness credibility without inconsistencies automatically undermining a conviction. Jury assessments of witness testimony may vary, and circumstantial evidence holds equal weight to direct evidence. In this case, the evidence does not overwhelmingly contradict the conviction, and the jury did not err in convicting Howell of the charges.
Howell's conviction is upheld, with the court finding it consistent with the sufficiency and weight of the evidence presented. The jury was deemed to have impartially evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and reached a conclusion regarding Howell's guilt. Substantial evidence supported the elements of the domestic violence charge beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the overruling of Howell's first assignment of error.
In Howell's second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum prison sentence. The appellate review of felony sentences has shifted from the two-step approach established in State v. Kalish to the standard under R.C. 2953.08, allowing modification or vacation of a sentence if found contrary to law or unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that while trial courts must make specific findings for consecutive sentences, they are not required to provide a detailed rationale, as long as the correct analysis is discernible. A failure to incorporate these findings into the sentencing entry is a clerical issue that can be corrected without rendering the sentence unlawful. The court emphasizes that factors listed in R.C. 2929.12 must be considered, but the trial court retains discretion in determining the appropriate sentence within statutory guidelines.
Under R.C. 2929.11(A), felony sentencing aims to protect the public from future offenses and to punish the offender with the least burdensome sanctions necessary to achieve these goals. The court must consider the need for incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. R.C. 2929.12 outlines factors the trial court must evaluate, including the severity of harm to the victim, the offender's criminal history, responses to prior sanctions, and expressions of remorse.
In the current case, the trial court noted that Howell was on community control at the time of the offense and had two prior domestic violence convictions. The court considered the victim impact statement and the violence involved in the offense. Upon review, the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory range and adhered to the principles set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, including considerations of seriousness and recidivism. The court explicitly stated the necessity of consecutive sentences for public protection and punishment, aligning with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requirements.
Consequently, the trial court's sentencing was found to be lawful, and Howell's second assignment of error was overruled. The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed, with concurrence from the presiding judges.
