[Cite as State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-2838.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 103325

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ALEX WILLIAMS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-15-592311-A 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Keough, P.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 5, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

David L. Doughten 

David L. Doughten Co., L.P.A. 

4403 St. Clair Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44103 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: David Schwark 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Alex Williams (“Alex”) appeals from his conviction for felonious assault 

and aggravated menacing, claiming that his conviction is against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. We disagree and affirm. 

{¶2} In October 2014, Alex attacked his upstairs neighbor with a machete. Alex, 

his brother Kurtis, and a friend had been fighting with the victim (“Sherman”) and 

Sherman’s brother and niece all day. The feuding neighbors were unable to ever coexist. 

 Police had responded to the ongoing fight earlier in the day, but witnesses were reluctant 

to cooperate, and the agitators, Alex and Kurtis, left the area. After the police officers 

left, thinking tempers had cooled, Alex and Kurtis returned, evidently to finish what was 

started. As the physical altercation escalated, Sherman’s brother was accosted by Alex 

and Kurtis. Sherman, unarmed, charged at both brothers. Alex pulled a machete and 

swung at Sherman, who defended himself by putting his hand out to stop the blow. Cut 

and badly bleeding, Sherman retreated to a nearby gas station to await medical help. 

{¶3} Sherman knew the Williams brothers and could distinguish between the two. 

He remembered seeing Alex, and not Kurtis, swing the machete at him. Sherman’s niece 

saw the attack and knew the Williams brothers. She also testified that Alex was the 

attacker. At trial, Alex called his mother and another witness. His mother testified that 

Alex and Kurtis looked different: Alex was more manicured, and Kurtis was unkept. 

Alex’s mother did not see the actual attack, but did tell Alex to leave the area after the 

attack. The other witness, who had been drinking all day, did not know anyone, but 
claimed the more unkept Williams brother, therefore Kurtis, was the attacker. The 

witness did not speak to the police officers who responded. 

{¶4} After the jury trial, Alex was found guilty of felonious assault and aggravated 

menacing and sentenced to an aggregate three-year term of imprisonment. He now 

appeals, advancing a sole assignment of error claiming his conviction is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. We find no merit to his claim. 

{¶5} When reviewing a claim challenging the manifest weight of the evidence, the 

court, reviewing the entire record, must 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 created such a manifest miscarriage 

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. Reversing a 

conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence should be reserved for 

only the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. 

Id. 

{¶6} The weight of the testimony must still be considered by the trier of fact with 

the ability to view and hear firsthand the witnesses’ testimony. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio 

St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Although appellate 

courts are tasked with sitting as a “thirteenth” juror, “the demeanor of witnesses, the 

manner of their responses, and many other factors observable by [a trier of fact] * * * 

simply are not available to an appellate court on review.” State v. Bailey, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 97754, 2012-Ohio-3955, ¶ 12. “‘A conviction is not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence solely because the jury heard inconsistent testimony.’” State v. 

Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99819, 2014-Ohio-387, ¶ 37, quoting State v. Wade, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90029, 2008-Ohio-4574, ¶ 38. It is for this reason that reversing a 

conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence is only reserved for 

instances in which a miscarriage of justice would result. State v. Torres, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 99596, 2013-Ohio-5030, ¶ 93, citing State v. Raver, 10th Dist. Franklin 

No. 02AP-604, 2003-Ohio-958, ¶ 21. 

{¶7} Alex’s sole argument rests with the fact that a single witness claimed to have 

seen Kurtis swing the machete at Sherman and the fact that Alex’s mother claimed her 

sons wore different clothing than was described by Sherman. Although the mother 

attempted to shift blame to Kurtis, she did not witness the actual attack. Further, Alex 

makes no attempt to question the credibility of the state’s witnesses who universally and 

unequivocally identified him as the attacker. Both witnesses were familiar with both 

Alex and Kurtis, and could identify each, thus rendering any inconsistencies in the color 

of Alex’s clothing less compelling. As a result, we find no reason to circumvent the 

jury’s resolution of the inconsistent testimony heard at trial. 

{¶8} Finally, and within the manifest weight of the evidence challenge, Alex 

summarily concludes that he should have been convicted of a violation of R.C. 2903.12, 

which provides in pertinent part that “no person, while under the influence of sudden 

passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation 
occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using 

deadly force, shall knowingly cause serious physical harm to another,” because the victim 

was the aggressor. The evidence unequivocally established that all parties engaged in a 

mutual fight and Alex escalated that nondeadly fight with the use of a weapon. It is 

undisputed that Sherman was unarmed. There was no serious provocation for the use of 

force. State v. McDuffie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100826, 2014-Ohio-4924, ¶ 26. His 

argument is without merit. 

{¶9} The sole assignment of error is overruled, and the conviction is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The 

court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas 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, JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR