[Cite as State v. Holder, 2024-Ohio-4505.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee

v. 

DENZEL HOLDER

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 30010

Trial Court Case No. CRB 2301006

(Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on September 13, 2024

. . . . . . . . . . . 

ARVIN S. MILLER, Attorney for Appellant

 

MARIA L. RABOLD & LORI E. DENLINGER, Attorneys for Appellee

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Denzel Holder appeals from his conviction in the Miamisburg Municipal 

Court, following a bench trial, on one count of criminal mischief, a third-degree 

misdemeanor. Because we conclude that the municipal court did not err in amending 
-2-

the complaint during the course of the trial, the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed. 

Procedural History

{¶ 2} Holder was charged by complaint on October 2, 2023, with criminal mischief 

in violation of R.C. 2909.07(A)(3). Holder pled not guilty, and a bench trial occurred on 

November 27, 2023. During the trial, the charge against Holder was amended to a 

violation of R.C. 2909.07(A)(1). Holder was found guilty, and the court imposed a 

suspended sentence of 60 days, a fine of $250, two years of reporting probation, and 

ordered Holder to have no contact with the victim. On December 22, 2023, the municipal 

court granted Holder’s motion to stay execution of his sentence pending appeal.

 Assignments of Error 

{¶ 3} Holder asserts two assignments of error on appeal, which we will consider 

together. They are:

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A 

FAIR TRIAL BY FAILING TO REMAIN DETACHED AND NEUTRAL, 

WHEN SHE FAILED TO RULE ON THE DEFENDANT’S RULE 29 

MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AND THE STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

THE CASE, AND INSTEAD ADVISED THE STATE TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT.

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY AMENDING THE 

COMPLAINT AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE’S CASE WHEN THE 

AMENDMENT CHANGED THE IDENTITY OF THE CRIME.

{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, Holder argues that “[a]ny semblance of 
-3-

impartiality dissipated” when the trial judge advised the prosecutor that perhaps the State 

should amend the complaint, rather than ruling on the State’s or Holder’s motion to 

dismiss the case. He asserts that the court should have granted his Crim.R. 29 motion 

for acquittal, as supported by the fact that the prosecutor’s response to Holder’s motion 

was to request dismissal. According to Holder, the State conceded that it had not 

presented sufficient evidence of the charge, and the court’s response was not 

“independent and impartial.”

{¶ 5} In his second assignment of error, Holder argues that the amendment of the 

complaint “changed the identity of the crime.” He asserts that R.C. 2909.07(A)(3), under 

which he was initially charged, “prohibits actions that tamper with the correct designation 

of real estate locations,” whereas R.C. 2909.07(A)(1) “criminalizes different actions.” In 

other words, Holder argues that R.C. 2909.07 sets forth “multiple variations of the general 

category of criminal mischief” in its subsections, and the variations have different 

“identities.”

{¶ 6} The State responds that Holder’s argument does not overcome the 

presumption that the court was impartial and that the court correctly concluded that the 

subsection listed in the original complaint was a scrivener’s error.

 Bench Trial

{¶ 7} Officer Chris Fairchild of the West Carrollton Police Department testified that 

on August 25, 2023, while on routine patrol, he was dispatched to the victim’s home on 

the report of Holder tampering with a camera mounted above her door. Upon arrival, 

Fairchild observed that the camera had been removed from its mounting. The victim 
-4-

provided videos the camera had recorded, which Fairchild viewed.

{¶ 8} The victim testified that Holder is the biological father of her goddaughter and 

that she and Holder had been in a custody dispute over the child. On August 25, 2023,

the victim was at work in Columbus, Ohio. She had cameras on her front and back 

doors. On her cameras, the victim observed Holder and two of his children approach 

her front door from a vehicle, remove the camera there, and then proceed to her back 

door. She stated that Holder had been unable to remove her rear camera. 

{¶ 9} Video from the camera was played for the court, and the victim identified 

Holder removing the camera from its mounting bracket at the front door. She stated that

the camera had been dented, scratched, and had no audio after Holder tampered with it. 

The victim also stated that there had been no reason for Holder to be at her home. 

{¶ 10} At the conclusion of the State’s case, Holder’s attorney moved for an 

acquittal on the basis that he had been charged under R.C. 2909.07(A)(3), which involves 

moving, defacing, damaging, destroying, or tampering with “a benchmark, triangulation 

station, boundary marker, or other survey station, monument, or marker.” The 

prosecutor acknowledged that Holder had been cited under the wrong subsection and 

moved to dismiss without prejudice so that the State could refile. At that point, the court 

called a brief recess.

{¶ 11} After the recess, the court stated that, under Crim.R. 7(D), the State could

amend a complaint “at any time before, during, or after a trial . . . as long as no change is 

made in the name or identity of the crime charged.” The court suggested that an 

appropriate remedy would be for the State to request to amend the complaint under 
-5-

Crim.R. 7(D).

{¶ 12} The prosecutor noted that the complaint specifically stated that Holder had 

used force to remove a mounted video camera, although it cited the incorrect subsection. 

The prosecutor asserted that the Revised Code section cited, R.C. 2909.07, was correct, 

but it should be amended from R.C. 2909.07(A)(3) to R.C. 2909.07(A)(1). Defense 

counsel objected to amending the complaint on the basis that jeopardy had attached.

{¶ 13} The municipal court stated that it did not see that changing the subsection 

under which Holder was charged would unduly prejudice him in any way, because the 

complaint was “very specific” in describing the conduct at issue. The court also 

suggested that a clerical error in entering the section number could have “autogenerated 

the language for the benchmark, triangulation station, boundary marker.” The court 

overruled Holder’s Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal under both the originally-charged 

section and the amended section. 

{¶ 14} Defense counsel then called Holder to testify. Holder testified that he had

full legal custody of his daughter; the victim had previously had custody until August 24, 

2023, while he “got on [his] feet.” He stated that, on the date in question, he went to the 

victim’s home with “the kids” after the victim called him and told him she would be home

soon, intending to pick up his daughter’s belongings. 

{¶ 15} Holder stated that he had observed trash and a few pieces of plastic lying 

around in front of the victim’s house, and he moved those items “to the side” because the 

victim liked “to keep it nice out there” and he wanted to “respect the area.” Holder knew 

that the victim had cameras at her home. When he knocked on the door, he “thought 
-6-

something came out from the sky, from the window or whatever, but it was already like 

shards of plastic coming off the house . . . but I believe that the camera might have already 

been there . . . .” Holder stated that he did not intend to damage any cameras.

{¶ 16} On cross-examination, Holder stated that he picked up a camera that was 

“already down on the ground type thing” and that “pieces of plastic” were falling down as 

well. The video was replayed for Holder, and he identified himself on the video. When 

asked if the video depicted him picking up a camera, he responded, “it’s probably just 

something that was out of place, so if it was out of place, I’m just going to put it back in 

place.” On rebuttal, the victim denied inviting Holder to her home.

{¶ 17} Defense counsel renewed his motion for acquittal at the end of the 

evidence, arguing that the video merely reflected that the camera had fallen from the 

home at some point. The court denied the motion. The court found Holder guilty. With 

respect to the amendment, the court noted that the case file “lists the correct code” a few 

different times, which supported the conclusion “that the (A)(3) version was simply a 

typographical scrivener[’]s error.” 

Analysis

{¶ 18} “ ‘It is well settled that a criminal trial before a biased judge is fundamentally 

unfair and denies a defendant due process of law.’ ” State v. Graf, 2022-Ohio-2169, ¶ 15 

(2d Dist.), quoting State v. LaMar, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 34, citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 

570, 577 (1986). “ ‘In determining whether purported judicial bias resulted in a due 

process violation, we presume that a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced in the matters 

over which he or she presides, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be
-7-

compelling in order to overcome the presumption.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Id. For the 

following reasons, we conclude that Holder has not overcome the presumption that the 

municipal court judge acted without bias or prejudice in permitting amendment of the 

complaint.

{¶ 19} R.C. 2909.07 proscribes criminal mischief. It states:

(A) No person shall:

(1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or 

otherwise improperly tamper with either of the following:

(a) The property of another;

. . .

(3) Without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or 

otherwise improperly tamper with a bench mark, triangulation station, 

boundary marker, or other survey station, monument, or marker[.]

{¶ 20} Initially, we note that Holder mischaracterizes the record in asserting that 

the State conceded that it lacked sufficient evidence to support the charge against him. 

The State merely noted that the offense “was cited under the wrong subsection.”

{¶ 21} Crim.R. 7(D) states, in relevant part: “The court may at any time before, 

during, or after a trial amend the . . . complaint, . . . in respect to any defect, imperfection, 

or omission in form or substance, . . . provided no change is made in the name or identity 

of the crime charged.” 

{¶ 22} “Whether an amendment changes the name or identity of the crime charged 

is a matter of law.’” State v. Jones, 2015-Ohio-4116, ¶ 125 (2d Dist.), citing State v. 
-8-

Frazier, 2010-Ohio-1507, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.). “Hence, we review this question de novo.” Id.

{¶ 23} “Where the ‘name’ of the crime remains the same, even after amendment, 

there is no violation of Crim.R. 7(D) regarding that prohibition.” (Citations omitted.) 

State v. Craft, 2009-Ohio-675, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.). “In order to determine whether the 

identity is changed, we must determine whether the amended indictment changes the 

‘penalty or degree’ of the offense.” Id., citing State v. Davis, 2008-Ohio-4537, syllabus. 

{¶ 24} The complaint charged Holder as follows:

* * * One Denzel J. Holder * * * did unlawfully[:] No person shall, without 

privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise 

improperly tamper with a bench mark, triangulation station, boundary 

marker, or other survey station, monument, or marker. To wit; Denzel J. 

Holder did knowingly move, by force, a mounted video camera that was 

secured above [the victim’s] front door to her apartment.

The complaint provided that the offense was contrary to and in violation of R.C. 

2909.07(A)(3) and that it was commonly known as criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of 

the third degree.

{¶ 25} Accordingly, before and after the amendment, Holder was charged with 

criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the third degree; the name and identity of the offense 

charged were not changed.

{¶ 26} “ ‘If the amendment does not change the name or identity of the crime 

charged, then we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to the trial court’s 

decision to allow a Crim.R. 7(D) amendment.’ ” Jones, 2015-Ohio-4116, at ¶ 125 (2d 
-9-

Dist.), citing Frazier, 2010-Ohio-1507, at ¶ 23 (2d Dist.). “ ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been 

defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” (Citation 

omitted.) AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 

Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning 

process that would support that decision.” Id. “In addition, a defendant must show 

prejudice as a result of the amendment.” State v. Madding, 2011-Ohio-3865, ¶ 11 (2d 

Dist.), citing State v. Brumback, 109 Ohio App.3d 65, 81 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 27} We note that there was an attachment to the complaint entitled: “Offense: 

Criminal Mischief - Move, Deface, Tamper, Etc. Property of Another – (290-

Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property).” That attachment identified the offense

charged as a violation of R.C. 2909.07(A)(1). 

{¶ 28} A narrative prepared by Officer Fairchild was also attached to the complaint. 

It stated that the dispatch in this case had been for “a trespassing/harassing complaint,” 

and the victim had advised dispatch that “a known male identified as Denzel J. Holder 

was outside of her apartment moving her cameras.” The narrative stated that the victim 

had provided Fairchild with the videos of Holder and two others in front of her property 

and had captured the act of Holder tampering with the camera. It stated: “This report will 

be forwarded to the City Prosecutor for review of the charge, Criminal Mischief (O.R.C. 

2907.07(A)(1) M-3). I have attached a copy of the Misdemeanor Approval Sheet.” 

{¶ 29} A subsequent narrative by Fairchild, also attached to the complaint, stated: 

“I received the Misdemeanor Approval Sheet back from the City Prosecutor indicating the 

charge of Criminal Mischief (O.R.C. 2090.07(A)(1) M-3) against Holder was approved 
-10-

(see attached Misdemeanor Approval Sheet).” Finally, we note that at the start of trial, 

when asked if she chose to make an opening statement, defense counsel responded: “I 

believe the evidence is going to show that Mr. Holder simply went up to [the victim’s] door, 

knocked on the door, and the camera fell and he removed the camera to get [it] back by 

the door.”

{¶ 30} The prosecutor approved a charge of criminal mischief in violation of R.C. 

2909.07(A)(1), the wording of the complaint specific to the complaint and its attachments 

made clear that the charge against Holder arose from the act of tampering with or 

damaging the victim’s camera, and the State’s evidence was addressed to Holder’s 

actions involving the victim’s camera. As such, we agree with the municipal court that a

scrivener’s-type error in the complaint occurred, and that the defect, imperfection, or 

omission was the sort contemplated by Crim.R. 7(D). In other words, Holder was neither

misled nor prejudiced by the amendment. 

{¶ 31} We conclude that the municipal court acted reasonably and did not abuse 

its discretion in amending the complaint. There also was no evidence of judicial bias.

Holder’s assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 32} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

EPLEY, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.