[Cite as Cleveland v. Hale , 2024

- Ohio

- 2712.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
CITY OF CLEVELAND , :

Plaintiff

- Appell ee , : No. 11 3 434 v. :
RAYVON HALE , :

Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 1 8 , 2024

C riminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No s
. 2022
- CR B

- 010748, 202 3
- CRB

- 002149, and 202 3
- CRB

- 003191
Appearances:
Mark Griff

i n, City of Cleveland Director of Law , and Aric Kinast, Assistant City Prosecutor , for a ppell ee
. Christina M. Joliat , for a ppell ant

.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER , J.:

A ppellant , Rayvon Hale (“ Hale ”) , appeals his misdemeanor
convictions in the three underlying cases following a bench trial in the Cleveland Municipal Court . In all, Hale was convicted of two counts of aggravated disorderly conduct, one count of disorderly conduct, and one count of resisting arrest withharm to law enforcement , and sentence was imposed. Upon review of the record

and relevant case law, we affirm the convictions.

Under his sole assignment of error, Hale claims that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the evidence was not sufficient for finding him guilty.

When determining whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, “‘ [t] he 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. Wilks , 2018

- Ohio

- 1562, ¶ 156, quoting State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing
court considers “ whether the evidence, ‘ if believed, would convince the average mind
of the defendant ’ s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ’” State v. Pountney , 2018

- Ohio

22, ¶ 19, quoting Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus.

When considering a manifest

- weight challenge , “ we review 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 miscarr iage of justice that we
must reverse the conviction and order a new trial. ” Wilks at ¶ 168, citing State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). Reversing a conviction based upon the weight of the evide nce should occur “‘ only in the exceptional case in which theevidence weighs heavily against the conviction. ’” Thompkins at 387, quoting State

v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

As to the offenses involved herein , the relevant provisions provide as
follows:
Cleveland Cod

. Ord

. 605.03 , Disorderly Conduct: (a) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another, by doing any of the following: (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior; (2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person, which by its very utterance or usage inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

. . . (e) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor. If the offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist, disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the first degree. R.C. 2921.33(B), Resisting Arrest: No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person and, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, cause physical harm to a law enforcement officer.
In Cleveland M.C. No. 2022

- CRB

- 010748, Hale was convicted of aggravated disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of
Cleveland Cod.Ord. 605.03(a)(1). A deputy bailiff for the Cleveland Municipal Court
testified that on December 16, 2022, he observed Hale verbally abusing a clerk supervisor. The bailiff indicated that Hale threatened the clerk supervisor withbodily harm and that four or five other individuals were present who looked

physically very uncomfortable and asked the bailiff to intervene. Hale was asked to leave, but he refused. Hale continued to escalate verbally , and he threatened another bailiff who was present. A deputy sheriff who responded testified that Hale
was handcuffed and was very irate . Hale was escorted o ut and was given multiple warnings to stop engaging in the manner in which he was engaging.

In Cleveland M.C. No. 2023

- CRB

- 002149, Hale was convicted of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor in violation of Cleveland Cod.Ord. 605.03(a)(2). A patrol officer for Cleveland State University testified that on
March 12, 2023, he responded to a call about a disorderly male who was verbally threatening staff members at Rascal House on Euclid Avenue. When the officer arrived on scene, he observed Hale on the sidewalk in front of the Rascal House.
The officer asked Hale for his name and date of birth multiple times

. Hale “was saying it so fast ” that the officer could not understand him. The officer testified that
Hale was “belligerent, screaming and just not complying” with the officer’s request.
The officer further testified to Hale’s “belligerence in his disorderly language, disorderly conduct and threats.” The officer indicated that there were several people
who witnessed Hale’s comments

. The officer issued Hale a ticket for disorderly
conduct based on his behavior and actions and his verbal threats toward the officer
and Rascal House sta ff.

In Cleveland M.C. No. 2023

- CRB

- 003191, Hale was convicted of aggravated disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation ofCleveland Cod.Ord. 605.03(a)(2); and resisting arrest with harm to law

enforcement, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2921.33(B). A patrolman for the R egional Transit Authority p o lice d epartment testified that on April 23, 2023, he responded to a dispatch and observed Hale and another male engaged in an active , physical fight in a public area at Tower City . There was a group of people watching the incident happen

. The patrolman indicated that “both males were punching each other and hitting each other .” The patrolman testified that he ordered the two men to stop and that when Hale turned to face him, the other male
struck Hale in the back of the head. Once t he patrolman had the two men separated , he initially intended to arrest both males for assault. A fter the other male was
handcuffed and standing by a wall , the patrolman informed Hale he w as going in
handcuff s. Hale did not comply. Rather , Hale “started to become loud, stating he wasn’t going in handcuffs , ” and he continuously pull ed away and resisted being placed in handcuffs . At one point, the patrolman and Hale fell to the ground, and the other male that was handcuffed began to kick Hale. Eventually, the patrolman gained control of Ha le. T he patrolman sustained an injury to his el b ow , and EMS
was called. Other testimony was provided as to each offense , and t his court has fully reviewed the record. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
evidence wa s sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find Hale guilty of each of the offenses. Additionally, in considering the weight of the evidence, we do not find the trier of fact clearly lo s t its way or that the evidence weighs against the convictions.We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments otherwise. The s ole assignment of

error is overruled

.

Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mand ate issue out of this court directing the municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated . Case remanded to the
trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER , J UDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE , P. J. , and ANITA LASTER MAYS , J., CONCUR