[Cite as State v. Taylor , 2023
- Ohio
- 786.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

vs. PAUL TAYLOR , Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C

- 220226

TRIAL NO. B

- 2104363

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is : Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 15, 2023

Melissa A. Powers , Hamilton County Prose cuting Attorney , and Paula E. Adams , Assistant Prosecuting A ttorney, for Plaintiff

- Appellee , Raymond T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters , Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant

- Appellant

.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2 Z AYAS , Presiding J udge. 

### {¶1} Paul Taylor a ppeals his conv iction and sentence , after a bench trial, for domestic violence. In two assignment s of error, Taylor contends his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the victim’s testimony that he physically harmed her was no t credible, and that the trial c ourt erred in imposing

sentence

. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand the cause to the trial court

. Factual Background 

### {¶2} In August 2021, Paul Tayl or was indicted for domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) for physically harming Virginia Davidson, a felony of the fourth degree due to a prior conviction. After a bench trial, the court found him guilty and s entenced him to 18 months of inca rceration and o rdered him to have no contact with the victim. 

### {¶3} Taylor stipulated to the prior conviction and admitted that he and Davidson, his former girlfriend, had lived together for approximately seven months. The dispute at trial was whether Taylor ph ysically harmed Davidson

. 

### {¶4} Davidson testified that she and Taylor began arguing while walking home from his job at Gold Star. Davidson had met him at work after his shift ended. When she arrived, a guy grabbed her arm and asked her if she wanted to sm oke marijuana. She declined and entered the restaurant

. 

### {¶5} While walking home, Taylor criticized her for not fighting the guy who grabbed her arm and screamed at her while they walked home. The argument continued after the y entered the home. Davidson testi fied that when she put her arm

on Taylor’s leg, he warned her to remove it. When she did not move it fast enough, Taylor “popped” her twice on her chin. The “pop” caused no injuries

.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 

### {¶6} Afterwards, Davidson and Taylor walked to the store to purchase alcohol ic beverages. When they got home, the y started drinking and shooting baskets in the driveway. When t hey reentered the house, Taylor called her a “hoe” and started hitting her. Davidson fought back, and they continued to hit each other throughout the nig ht

. 

### {¶7} Davidson testified that Taylor forced her to her knees, placed his penis in her mouth, and made her call him by her father’s name. Davidson began crying. When he stopped, she went to the bath room. Taylor followed her to the bathroom and “pounded” the back of her neck. They continued to fight throughout the night, and Taylor continued to shove her, choke her , and beat her. Finally, Davidson convinced him to go to bed

. 

### {¶8} The next morning, Taylor went to work, and Davidson called her sister. She we nt to her siste r’s home. Davidson had her sister take photos of the bruises on her arms and a bruise under her breast. The photos were admitted at the trial

. 

### {¶9} When Davidson returned home at approximately midnight, she found Taylor sleeping on the couch. Taylor had br oken into the home because he did not have a key. They exchanged words, and Taylor left. A few hours later, Davidson called the police

. 

### {¶10} Officer Raymond Seehousen responded to Davidson’s home at 3:00 a.m. Seeho u sen noted the damage to the doorjamb of th e front door. After taking her

statemen t, Seehousen filed the domestic

- violence charg e. Seehousen testified that Davidson’s court room testimony regarding the altercations included many accusations and details that were not included in her statement to hi m .OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4 

### {¶11} Taylor testified on his own behalf and confirmed that Davidson and he argued as they walked home from Gold Star. Taylor was mad that Davidson did not yell at the guy who grabbed her. The arguing escalated to inappropriate name calling b y both of them. As they were sitting on the couch, they were arguing back and forth. Davidson and Taylor argued as they walked to the store and bought Monster energy drinks and continued to argue when they got home until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. when they

went to bed together

. 

### {¶12} The next day, Taylor overslept and was late for work. Davidson did not want him to go to work, and they argued when he refused to skip work. Taylor went to work. Later, he went to the house to remove his belongings because he knew
Da vidson was not home. Taylor returned to work and put his belongings in a garage owned by his boss. Taylor worked until 9:00 p.m., then went to the house and fell asleep on the bed while waiting for Davidson to return. When he heard Davidson arrive, Tayl or went outside to speak to her. He had words with her sister and left

. 

### {¶13} Taylor denied hitting her, sexually assaulting her, choking her or having any physical altercations with her

. 

### {¶14} The trial court found that the stories were a bit hard to follow, but t hat it all came down to credibility and whether she believed Davidson or Taylor. The trial court summarized the evidence and found Taylor guilty

. The court sentenced Taylor
to 18 months of incarceration and ordered him not to have contact with the victim

.

Manifest Weig ht of the Evidence 

### {¶15} In his first assignment of error, Taylor contends that the conviction is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because the victim’s testimony that he physically harmed her was not credible

. 

### {¶16} In reviewing a weight

- of

- the

- evidence claim, we review “ ‘the entireOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5 record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and c reated such a m anifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Bailey , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 140129, 2015
- Ohio

- 2997, ¶ 59, quoting State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). “[ I] it is well se ttled law that matters as to the credibility of witnesses are fo r the trier of fact to resolve.” State v. Ham , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 170043, 2017
- Ohio

- 9189, ¶ 21. “ ‘ When conflicting evidence is presented at trial, a conviction is not a gainst the mani fest weight of the evidence simply because the trier of fact belie ved the prosecution testimony.’ ” State v. Robinson , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018

- 08

- 163, 2019

- Ohio

- 3144, ¶ 29, quoting State v. Lunsford , 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010

- 10
- 021, 2011
- Ohio

- 6529 , ¶ 17. 

### {¶17} T he trial court heard all of the testimony, summarized the evidence, acknowledged that the issue was credibility, and found Taylor guilty. The court found Davidson’s testimony to be the mo re credible version of events

. The trial co urt was in the best position to observe the witness’s testimony and assess the witness’s demeanor and credibility

. We cannot say that the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be rever sed and a n ew t rial ordered

. 

### {¶18} Accordingly, we overrule the first assignment of error. Sentencing 

### {¶19} In his second assignment of error, Taylor contends the trial court erred by imposing a no - contact order in addition to a prison sentence. We have previously determined that the imposition of a prison term precludes the trial court from ordering “no

- contact.” State v. Tolbert , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 170711, 2019
- Ohio

- 2557, ¶ 32.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6 The state concedes the error. We sustain the assignment of error, and remand t he

cause to the trial court to vacate the no

- contact order

. Conclusion 

### {¶20} We sustain Taylor ’s second assignment of error and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to vacate the no

- contact order. We affirm the trial court’s ju dgment in all oth er respects

.

J udgment affirmed in part, rever sed in part, and cause remanded

.

B ERGERON and W INKLER , J J ., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.