[Cite as State v. Million, 2012-Ohio-1774.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24744 

v. : T.C. NO. 11CR507 

TEVIN K. MILLION : (Criminal appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 : 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 20th day of April , 2012. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

MICHELE D. PHIPPS, Atty. Reg. No. 0069829, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. 

Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

BYRON K. SHAW, Atty. Reg. No. 0073124, 4800 Belmont Place, Huber Heights, Ohio 

45424 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

FROELICH, J. 

{¶ 1} Tevin K. Million was indicted for aggravated robbery (a first degree 

felony) with a firearm specification, having a weapon while under disability (a third degree 
2

felony), and domestic violence (a fourth degree misdemeanor). Million pled guilty to 

having a weapon while under disability, but proceeded to trial on the remaining two counts. 

After a bench trial, the trial court found Million guilty of domestic violence, aggravated 

robbery, and the firearm specification. The court sentenced Million to four years in prison 

for both the aggravated robbery and having a weapon while under disability, to be served 

concurrently, and an additional three years for the firearm specification, to be served 

consecutively to and prior to the definite four-year sentence. Million also received 30 days 

in jail for the domestic violence, with credit for time served. Million’s aggregate sentence 

was seven years. 

{¶ 2} Million appeals from his conviction, claiming that his convictions for 

aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and domestic violence were against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. The State’s response addresses the sufficiency of the 

State’s evidence, as well as Million’s argument that his convictions were against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. We will focus on the issue raised by Million. 

{¶ 3} “[A] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the 

evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more 

believable or persuasive.” State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 

2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 12. When evaluating whether a conviction is contrary to the manifest 

weight of the evidence, the appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence 

and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, 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.” 
3

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), citing State v. Martin, 

20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). 

{¶ 4} Because the trier of fact sees and hears the witnesses at trial, we must defer 

to the factfinder’s decisions whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular 

witnesses. State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 476684 (Aug. 22, 

1997). However, we may determine which of several competing inferences suggested by 

the evidence should be preferred. Id.

{¶ 5} The fact that the evidence is subject to different interpretations does not 

render the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence. Wilson at ¶ 14. A 

judgment of conviction should be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the 

evidence only in exceptional circumstances. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d at 175. 

{¶ 6} According to the victim, Shantel C., shortly before noon on February 11, 

2011, Million called Shantel, the mother of his child and his former girlfriend, and told her 

that a $1,700 tax refund had been seized due to his unpaid child support. Million said that 

Shantel soon would be getting a check and that he needed half of that money. Shantel 

responded to Million that he did not do anything for their son, so she would not give him the 

money. 

{¶ 7} Soon afterward, Million walked to Shantel’s home (which she shared with 

her parents) to talk to her about the money. As Million neared the house, Shantel was 

sitting in the passenger seat of a car parked in front of her house; her friend, Andrew 

Stiakakis, was in the driver’s seat. Shantel testified that Million called her on her cell phone 

and told her to get out of the car before he got in. Shantel got out of the car, holding her 
4

toddler, and was confronted by Million. Million demanded that Shantel give him $850, and 

he started “pulling on” and putting his hands in Shantel’s pant pockets. Million asked 

Shantel, “Well, if you ain’t got the money, your friend [referring to Stiakakis] got the money 

then?” Million showed Shantel a portion of the black and silver handgun that he carried in 

his pocket and told her, “If you don’t give me my money, I’m going to kill you.” Shantel’s 

grandmother, who had driven up to the house at the same time that Million arrived, tried to 

get between Shantel and Million and to convince Million to leave. 

{¶ 8} Shantel called the police with her cell phone. As she talked to the 

dispatcher, Million grabbed at the phone and attempted to end the call. In the process, 

Million pulled Shantel’s hair and pressed several buttons on the phone. Soon thereafter, 

Million walked away and headed down a nearby alley, stopping briefly to talk to Shantel’s 

mother. 

{¶ 9} Officer Greg Thornton testified that he responded to Shantel’s residence on 

a domestic violence report, which had indicated that a “Kevin Million” was assaulting the 

victim and had a gun. (Officer Charles Hurley, who also responded to that dispatch, heard 

“Tevin Million.”) As Thornton and his partner drove to the scene, they saw a man matching 

Million’s description at the end of the alley near the residence. The officers circled the 

block and parked near Shantel’s house. Shantel indicated that Million had gone down the 

alley, but her mother told the officers that Million was “long gone.” The officers located 

Million walking between nearby houses. Million fled on foot, but he was apprehended 

within a couple of blocks. 

{¶ 10} The police officers then looked for the gun that Million reportedly had; they 
5

were unable to locate it. After the police left, Shantel’s father found Million’s gun in a 

large bush in front of a house near his home. Shantel’s mother contacted the police again, 

and the family gave the gun to Officer Hurley, who responded to that call. 

{¶ 11} Several individuals witnessed the confrontation between Shantel and 

Million. Shantel’s grandmother (“Grandmother”) testified that she was driving Shantel’s 

mother home when she saw Shantel and Million out by Shantel’s friend’s car. Grandmother 

parked her car behind the friend’s car, and she immediately got out and went over to Shantel 

and Million. Grandmother heard Million say that he wanted the money, and she saw 

Million “pulling on” Shantel, reaching into her pockets, and trying to get money from her. 

Grandmother told Million that Shantel did not have money, that Shantel would give him 

money when she got it, and that he was not supposed to be there at the house. Grandmother 

heard Million say in a “demanding” voice, “I want $850” and “somebody [is] going to give 

it to me.” She also heard Million ask if Shantel’s friend had money. Grandmother 

observed Million “tussling” with Shantel while Shantel was on the phone with the police. 

She indicated that Million tried to take the phone away or hang it up. Grandmother did not 

see a gun, and she did not remember hearing Million threaten to kill Shantel. 

{¶ 12} Shantel’s mother (“Mother”) testified that she was at Grandmother’s home 

during the morning of February 11, 2011, when she received a call from Million, who said 

that he needed $850 that was taken from a tax refund. When Mother was being driven to 

her home by Grandmother, Mother saw Million walking down the alley toward her home. 

After Grandmother parked the car in front of Mother’s house, Mother got out of the car, 

went onto the porch of her home, and watched the interaction between Shantel and Million 
6

while she was on hold on the phone. Mother testified that Million was determined to get 

the money. She heard him say, “I got to have this money. You going to give me $850. If 

you don’t got it, your friend got it.” Mother saw Million lift up his shirt with his right hand 

and show Shantel the butt of his gun. Million did not take the gun out, but showed Shantel 

that he had it. 

{¶ 13} When Shantel called the police, Mother saw Million try to take the cell 

phone out of Shantel’s hand, and she heard Shantel say, “You’re pulling my hair.” Mother 

further stated that Grandmother was in between Shantel and Million during their 

confrontation, and she heard Million telling Grandmother to “Go, Granny.” Mother further 

testified that, after Million started to walk away, she went to the alley to talk to him. When 

Million heard the police, he went down the alley away from Shantel’s residence, and Mother 

walked back toward her house. 

{¶ 14} Andrew Stiakakis, Shantel’s friend, also testified about the altercation. 

Stiakakis stated that he remained in his car during the entire encounter and, unlike other 

witnesses, he recalled that most of the conversation between Shantel and Million occurred 

while Shantel was seated in the vehicle. However, he testified that Million came up and 

asked Shantel for money, and he also heard Million ask Shantel if her friend had money. 

Stiakakis did not see Million grab for Shantel’s phone or see him with a gun, but he heard 

Million threaten to kill Shantel. Stiakakis saw Million walk away through an alley. 

{¶ 15} Million testified on his own behalf. He described his “off and on” 

relationship with Shantel, and expressed that Shantel had become upset at various times 

because he was seeing other girls. He testified that Shantel was aware that he carried a gun. 
7

 He denied that he ever hit, punched, or threatened Shantel prior to February 11, 2011. 

{¶ 16} As to the incident on February 11, Million testified that he was trying to 

convince Shantel to give him half of the money whenever she received it. Although he had 

been trespassed from Shantel’s residence, he said that he went there on February 11 to see 

his son and to talk to her about the money. Million admitted that he had a loaded gun in his 

pocket when he went to Shantel’s residence, but he denied showing, exhibiting, or 

threatening Shantel with the gun. Million also denied making any threats that he would hurt 

Shantel. Million stated that he ran from the police because he did not want to get caught 

with the gun. 

{¶ 17} At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Million guilty of 

aggravated robbery with the firearm specification and domestic violence. Although the 

court indicated that it did not need to give the facts to support its decision, it stated that it did 

not find Million to be credible. The court found that Million had made a “present demand 

for money,” not a future request, as shown by his going through Shantel’s pockets and 

asking if her friend in the car had money. The court further found that Million had a 

weapon on his person and that he indicated his possession of that weapon. The court stated 

that “[t]hat is supported by the present sense impression made on that 9-1-1 call when 

Shantel said, you know, he’s got a gun or he’s showing me a gun.” The court found that the 

State also proved the firearm specification beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the domestic 

violence count, the court indicated that several of Million’s actions supported a guilty 

finding for domestic violence. It noted that Million pulled Shantel’s hair, showed her the 

gun, and told Shantel that he was going to kill her. 
8

{¶ 18} On appeal, Million argues that his convictions for aggravated robbery and 

domestic violence are against the manifest weight of the evidence because Shantel was not 

credible and her testimony refuted the conclusion that he committed those offenses. Million 

notes that Shantel’s Domestic Violence Written Statement did not mention a robbery or that 

Million had grabbed her hair. He emphasizes that Shantel testified at trial that Million had 

told her, “You’ll be getting a check in a couple of days. I need that – I need half.” Million 

thus argues that he “could not have shown up to commit [an] aggravated robbery of the 

victim of child support monies when he already knew she didn’t have the money in her 

possession per [her] own testimony beside knowing Shantell [sic] was unemployed since 

2010.” He also notes that he allegedly brandished a weapon after searching her pockets and 

learning that she did not have any money, thus suggesting that he did not display his weapon 

as part of a theft offense. 

{¶ 19} The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their 

testimony were matters for the trial court, as the trier of fact, to determine. The trial court did 

not lose its way simply because it chose to believe the State’s version of the events, which it 

had a right to do. Although Shantel’s testimony indicates that Million knew that she had 

not yet received the money, the trial court did not lose its way when it found that Million’s 

demands for money – coupled with his searching of Shantel’s pockets, his question about 

whether Shantel’s friend had money, and the displaying of a loaded gun – demonstrated that 

Million was attempting to obtain money from Shantel on February 11. Moreover, to 

constitute aggravated robbery, it was not necessary that Million actually obtain any money 

from Shantel; R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) prohibits individuals from having and indicating the 
9

possession of a deadly weapon “in attempting or committing a theft offense” or “in fleeing 

immediately after the attempt or offense.” There was ample evidence to support the trial 

court’s conclusion that Million committed aggravated robbery when he indicated his 

possession of a gun while attempting to force Shantel to give him money. 

{¶ 20} Million’s conviction on the firearm specification also was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

R.C. 2941.145 permits imposition of a mandatory three year prison 

term where the indictment specifies, and the jury finds: 

“* * * that the offender had a firearm on or about the offender’s 

person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and 

displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender 

possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate the offenses.” 

R.C. 2923.11(B) defines “firearm” and provides: 

”(1) ‘Firearm’ means any deadly weapon capable of expelling or 

propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or 

combustible propellant. ‘Firearm’ includes an unloaded firearm, and any 

firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable. 

“(2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of expelling or 

propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or 

combustible propellant, the trier of fact may rely upon circumstantial 

evidence, including, but not limited to, the representations and actions of the 

individual exercising control over the firearm.” 
10

Both a firearm’s existence and its operability may be inferred from the 

surrounding facts and circumstances. It is not necessary to admit the firearm 

used during the crime in evidence in order to establish a firearm specification. 

State v. Murphy (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 551 N.E.2d 932; State v. Knight,

Greene App. No.2003CA14, 2004-Ohio-1941. A victim’s belief that the 

weapon is a gun, together with the intent on the part of the accused to create 

and exploit that belief for his own criminal purposes, is sufficient to prove a 

firearm specification. State v. Greathouse, Montgomery App. No. 21536, 

2007-Ohio-2136. 

State v. Vann, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22818, 2009-Ohio-5308, ¶ 22-27. 

{¶ 21} Shantel and her mother both testified that Million had a gun, had demanded 

money from Shantel, and had displayed a portion of the gun to Shantel to show her that he 

had it. Shantel’s father located a gun in front of a nearby house, and Officer Hurley, who 

retrieved the gun from Shantel’s family, testified that the gun was loaded, with eleven bullets 

in the magazine and one in the chamber. Million acknowledged that he had the gun when 

he spoke with Shantel on February 11 and that the gun had bullets in the magazine. He 

further stated that he carried the gun for protection and so he could use it if he had to. 

Although there was no evidence from a firearm expert that the gun was tested and found to 

be operable, there was substantial circumstantial evidence from which the trial court could 

have reasonably concluded that Million had an operable firearm when he attempted to take 

money from Shantel and that he indicated his possession of that firearm during the 

commission of the robbery. 
11

{¶ 22} Finally, we agree with the trial court that Million’s conviction for domestic 

violence was supported by his pulling Shantel’s hair, his verbal threat to kill her, and his 

displaying of the gun in a threatening manner. 

{¶ 23} Million’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

 Moreover, given our determination that Million’s convictions were not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence, the convictions necessarily were based on legally sufficient 

evidence. State v. Combs, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19853, 2004-Ohio-2419, ¶ 12. 

{¶ 24} The sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 25} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

HALL, J. and FISCHER, J., concur. 

(Hon. Patrick F. Fischer, First District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio). 

Copies mailed to: 

Michele D. Phipps 

Byron K. Shaw 

Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman