[Cite as State v. Myles , 2013-Ohio-2227.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25297

v. : T.C. NO. 12CRB403 ROBIN E. MYLES : (Criminal appeal from Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant :

:

. . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 31st day of May , 2013.

. . . . . . . . . . RAYMOND J. DUNDES, Atty. Reg. No. 0041515, Prosecuting Attorney, City of Trotwood, 195 South Clayton Road, New Lebanon, Ohio 45345 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee DWIGHT D. BRANNON, Atty. Reg. No. 0021657 and MATTHEW C. SCHULTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0080142, 130 West Second Str eet, Suite 900, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . FROELICH, J. {¶ 1} Robin E. Myles appeals from a judg ment of the Montgomery County2 Municipal Court, Western Division, which found her guilty of criminal damaging following a bench trial. She was sentenced to 30 days in jail, which was suspended, and she was placed on supervised community control for a peri od of five years; Myles was ordered to pay restitution as a condition of her community contro l, in an amount to be determined by the probation department. For the following reasons , the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed in part, reversed in part, and re manded for a determina tion of the amount of restitution. {¶ 2} Myles’s brief contains a lengthy pro cedural history involving several cases. Insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, Myles was charged with criminal damaging following an incident at the house of her former hus band, Fernando Mason. Ma son and Myles have a contentious relationship. Mason is the reside ntial parent for their son, who has serious medical conditions and require s professional medical care. On March 16, 2012, after a confrontation with Mason, Myles was alleged to have deliberat ely scratched the paint on the car of a home health nurse, Cynthia Ely, who was caring for the child at Mason’s home. The facts will be discussed in greater detail below. {¶ 3} On March 19, 2012, a complaint for cr iminal damaging was filed in the trial court. On June 20, 2012, Myles was tried to the c ourt and found guilty. After a presentence report was prepared, Myles was sentenced as described above. {¶ 4} Myles appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising five assignments of

error. {¶ 5} Myles’s first and second a ssignments of error state: THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT FOR CRIMINAL3 DAMAGING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT FOR CRIMINAL DAMAGING WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶ 6} Myles contends that her conviction was supported by insufficient evidence because the “mechanism of damage asserted by the State,” i.e., the dragging of an umbrella along the side of Ely’s car while Myles drove her own vehicle past it, could not have caused the damage in question. She contends that he r conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that 1) the same “mechanism of damage * * * lacks any credibility” because there were two separate scratches on the car, 2) she would not have been in possession of an umbrella, because it was not a ra iny day, 3) the damage to the vehicle was not properly documented, 4) Ely and Mason, who testified on be half of the State, were clearly biased against her, and 5) it would have made no sense for Myles to scratch the vehicle because she knew that Mason had installed cameras around his home. {¶ 7} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Wilson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10, citing State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). When reviewing whether the State has presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational finde r of fact, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Stat e, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dennis , 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 6834 N.E.2d 1096 (1997). A guilty verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless “reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.” Id. {¶ 8} In contrast, “a weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the evidence and asks which of the compe ting inferences suggested by the evidence is more believable or persuasive.” Wilson at ¶ 12. See Eastley v. Volkman , 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 19 (“‘manifest we ight of the evidence’ refers to a greater amount of credible evidence and relates to persuasion”). When evaluating whether a conviction is contrary to the ma nifest weight of the evidence, the appellate cour t 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 manife st miscarriage of justi ce that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, citing State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 9} 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 deter mine which of several competin g inferences suggested by the evidence should be preferred. Id . The fact that the evidence is subject to different interpretations does not render th e 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, 485 N.E.2d 717.[Cite as State v. Myles , 2013-Ohio-2227.] {¶ 10} Myles was convicted of criminal damaging, in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that no person shall knowingly cause physical harm to the property of another by an y means without the other person’s consent. {¶ 11} The State’s evidence at trial established the following facts: {¶ 12} Mason and Myles are divorced and have a strained relationship. Mason is the residential parent for their son, who has serious medical needs a nd requires professional medical care. Pursuant to the divorce decree, Myles’s weekly visitation with the child must be supervised and must occur at Erma’s House. {¶ 13} Cynthia Ely worked at Mason’s home as a home health nurse, caring for the child. Ely had also cared for the child prior to the divorce, but was reassigned due to an altercation with Myles. After the divorce, Ely returned to caring for the child. {¶ 14} According to Mason, Myles came to Mason’s house on the evening of March 16, 2012, uninvited and unannounced. Mason has cameras set up around the exterior of his house which can be monitore d from within, and he saw Myles approaching the house. Mason went outside to talk with My les, who stated that she wanted to visit her son. When Mason informed Myles that he woul d not permit her to see the child outside of the court-ordered visita tions, she “started agitating the situ ation.” She also asked why Ely, to whom she referred using an expletive, wa s at the house, and Myles “went ballistic” when she learned the Ely was again caring for the child. She “stormed away” very angrily, with her teeth clenched. Myles was carrying an umbrella. {¶ 15} When Myles got into her car, she drove very slowly along the side of Ely’s car, which was parked on the street. As she did so, Myles was on the wrong side of the road, and the drivers’s side door s of the cars were very close together. After she pulled6 alongside Ely’s car, Myles “slowed down to a creep,” but did not stop. According to Mason, Myles’s car window was dow n. Mason and Ely testified th at the cars were less than one foot apart, and possibly as close as four inches, when Myles “creeped” past. After Myles left, Mason and Ely found “deep marks” in the paint on both doors on the driver’s side of Ely’s vehicle. Ely testified that th e scratches had not been on her car earlier in the day. The State’s theory of the case was the Myles had dragged the umbrella along the side of Ely’s car as she passed it in her own car. {¶ 16} Trotwood Police Officer Michelle Hudwell investigated the alleged criminal damaging the next day, March 17, because no officers had been available to respond to the call on the 16th. She testified th at there were two fres h, parallel, “a little bit wavy” scratches in the paint on Ely’s car on the driver’s side. The he ight of the scratches differed by three to four inches; one “went from the driver’s side door slightly onto the passenger door, maybe one or two inches,” and the other one “s tarted in the middle of the driver’s door and stretched to the rear passenger door.” At oral argument, Myles’s counsel stated that the roughly-parallel lines overlapped three to four inches. {¶ 17} Ely testified that she got an estima te of $1,028 to repair and paint her car. {¶ 18} Myles testified that she had gone to Mason’s house to deliver toys for her son, but Mason convinced her to save the presen ts for the boy’s birthday, which was in a few weeks. According to Myles, she knew she woul d not be allowed to see her son and had not tried to see him. She also stated that sh e knew Mason had cameras outside his home, and she “wouldn’t intentionally * * * incriminate myself” by doing anything that could be caught on camera. She denied having an umbrella in her hand and that it had been raining at any7 time that day. She also denied having a problem with Ely’s watching her child and stated that she had never threatened Ely. {¶ 19} In rebuttal, Ely testified that, after a pretrial hearing in the case a few weeks earlier, when the women were each in their respective cars at a stoplight on the street, Myles had yelled at her and said she (Myles) “w as going to whup [her] * * * fat ass and get [her] fat ass out of the car.” {¶ 20} The State presented sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Myles had knowingly caused physical damage to Ely’s car, without Ely’s permission. Although she asserts in her br ief that an umbrella could not have caused the damage in question, the State’s evidence, if believed, supported a contrary conclusion. Myles’s conviction for crimin al damaging was supported by sufficient evidence. {¶ 21} In her argument challenging the weight of the evidence, Myles essentially contends that the State’s evid ence should not have been belie ved. However, the credibility of the evidence was for the trial court to determine, because it heard the evidence directly. {¶ 22} Myles contends that the testimony of Mason and Ely should not have been believed because of the contentiousness of he r past relationship with them; however, her own testimony suffered from the same infirmity. Myles claims that she would not have had an umbrella because it was not a rainy day, but Mason and Ely testified that it had rained earlier in the day and that Myles had an umbr ella in her hand at the door of the house. Myles asserts, without any evidence, that an umbrella could not have caused the damage in question, because there were tw o scratches on the doors, at different levels. Officer Hudwell testified that the scratches were three to four inches apart. Based on the evidence8 presented, there was no basis to conclude that an umbrella could not have caused such marks; in fact, the trial court could have drawn a reasonable infe rence that an umbrella could cause such marks. And, although it may follo w that one would not commit a crime in an area in which cameras are in operation, the existe nce of cameras in this case did not preclude a finding of guilt, based on the testimony of Mason and Ely that Myles had driven her car in a manner consistent with causing th e damage to Ely’s vehicle. {¶ 23} Based on the evidence presented in th is case, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriag e of justice when it convicted Myles of criminal damaging. {¶ 24} The first and second assign ments of error are overruled. {¶ 25} Myles’s third assign ment of error states: TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY TRIAL AND BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY. {¶ 26} Myles claims that her trial attorney was ineffective in failing to request a jury trial. She contends that, because the ev idence was “so close, and indeed insufficient,” the failure to request a jury trial “is the difference between convic tion and exoneration.” She also contends that allowing the judge to hear the case was “simply incomprehensible,” because he (the judge) was aware of and/or had adjudicated other cases in which Myles was involved. {¶ 27} Although Myles’s statement of this assignment of error also includes a suggestion that counsel failed to object to inadmi ssible hearsay, her argument with respect to9 this issue is contained entirely under the fourth assignment of error, and we will address it there. {¶ 28} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that his or her conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable assistance. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. To reverse a conviction based on in effective assistance of counsel, it must be demonstrated that trial counsel ’s conduct fell below an objectiv e standard of reasonableness and that his or her errors we re serious enough to create a r easonable probability that, but for the errors, the result of the tria l would have been different. Strickland at 688. {¶ 29} Myles acknowledges in her brief that this court has repeatedly held that the decision not to request a jury trial is normally viewed as a matter of trial strategy and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Pierson v. Rion , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23498, 2010-Ohio-1793, ¶ 28; and Beavercreek v. Levalley , 2d Dist. Greene No. 06-CA-51, 2007-Ohio-2105, ¶ 19. Howeve r, she contends th at she “objected” to proceedings without a jury in a motion to set aside the trial c ourt’s judgment and a petition for post-conviction relief. She argues that this “ objection” distinguishes this case from others in which we have found that the fa ilure to request a jury trial was a matter of trial strategy. {¶ 30} Myles’s appeal must be decided ba sed on the record that was before the court at the time of trial. Her post-trial motions cannot prope rly be characterized as timely objections to proceeding without a jury. Thus , we find her case indistinguishable from the other cases in which we have held that proceedin g without a jury is a ma tter of trial strategy.10 Moreover, we will not assume, without any ev idence in support of such a claim, that a judge’s involvement in or fa miliarity with other cases invol ving a defendant compromises the court’s impartiality. {¶ 31} The third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 32} Myles’s fourth assign ment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MS. MYLES BY ALLOWING INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY REGARDING A CHARGE THAT WAS DISMISSED. {¶ 33} Myles claims that the trial court erred in allowing the State to question her about a charge of menacing that was filed agai nst her, based on an a ltercation between Myles and Ely after the pre-trial conference in this case; the charge was later dismissed. Myles claims that this evidence was an improper attack on her credibility. {¶ 34} The relevant testimony during Myles’s cross-examination was as follows: Q: * * * So all those things [Myles backed out of Mason’s driveway, passed Ely’s car, and drove to the stop sign] we can agree to. The only thing that we disagree on is wh ether you scratched her car or not, is that right?
A: Yes. Q: And whether you were mad?
A. Yes. Q: Okay, And we would also disagree that you would never threaten Ms. Ely any harm at all, is that correct?11 A: Never. Q: Now, you were in court a couple weeks back, right?
A: Yes. Q: And when you left here, you threatened her, didn’t you? [Defense counsel objected on the basis of relevance, noting that there had been no conviction. The trial cour t sustained the objection.] Q: But it’s your testimony that you would never make any threats toward Ms. Ely? [Objection based on re levance, overruled.]
A: No. {¶ 35} The State then called Ely on rebuttal, and Ely stated that she had been threatened by Myles after the pretrial conference. {¶ 36} Evid.R. 404 provides that character evidence is not admissible for the purpose of proving that a person acted in c onformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, there are exceptions, including that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, though “not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, [may be] admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparati on, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Evid.R. 404(B). {¶ 37} A trial judge has considerable discretion to determine whether the specific evidence is of such a nature that it falls within one of the other purposes under Evid.R. 404(B) for which the evidence may be admitted. State v. Morris , 132 Ohio St.3d 337,12 2012-Ohio-2407, 972 N.E.2d 528, ¶ 19. Although th e trial court did not expressly state its basis for overruling Myles’s objection, it could have reasona bly concluded that evidence of the prior altercation was admissible to prove motive (the hostility between the women), that the scratches on the car were intentionally made, that Myles planned the act, or that there had been no mistake in My les’s scratching her umbrella along the car. The court also could have reasonably concl uded that the question about Myles’s threats toward Ely constituted proper impeachment of Myles’s assertion, on cr oss-examination, that she (Myles) would never have done anything to upset or threaten Ely. Evid.R. 607(A). Moreover, even if such evidence were not properly admitted, we would presume that the trial court, as the finder of fact, did not rely on prior bad acts in reaching its verdict. See State v. Blakely , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25120, 2012-Ohio-3841, ¶24 (“We will not presume that the trial court relied on improper evidence, when there is nothing in the record to support such a conclusion.”) {¶ 38} The fourth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 39} Myles’s fifth assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO THE REPAIR COST OF THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE AND IN RELYING ON THIS HEARSAY IN ORDERING RESTITUTION. {¶ 40} Myles argues that there are several problems with the court’s restitution order: 1) Ely’s testimony about the amount of damage to her car was inadmissible hearsay upon which the trial court could not rely in ordering restituti on, 2) the trial court did not properly award restitution becau se it referred the determina tion of the amount to the13 probation department, a nd 3) Ely was entitled to recover only the amount of her deductible, which was less than the total amount of damage to the car. {¶ 41} First, we note that Myles did not object at trial to Ely’s testimony about the estimate she had received on the cost of repairing the scratc hes in her car doors. Thus, Myles waived all but plain error. State v. Williams , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24548, 2012-Ohio-4179, ¶ 38. Plain error does not exist unle ss it can be said that, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. Id. , citing State v. Lang , 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, ¶ 108. Notice of plain error, therefore, “is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id . Ely’s evidence about the cost of the damage to her vehicle did not clearly affect the outcome of the case. Thus, we find no plain error. {¶ 42} Second, Myles disputes the manner in which restitution was awarded. The sentencing entry stated that Myles was senten ced to serve 30 days in jail and fined $100 plus court costs. The jail sentence and fine were suspended, and Myles was placed on supervised community control for five years. One of the conditions of community control was “Restitution, if any, to be paid as determined by proba tion department.” {¶ 43} R.C. 2929.28 provides for fi nancial sanctions for misde meanor offenses. It states, in pertinent part: * * * If the court requires restituti on, the court shall order that the restitution be made to the victim in open court or to the adult probation department that serves the jurisdiction or the clerk of the court on behalf of the victim.14 If the court imposes restitution, th e court shall determine the amount of restitution to be paid by the offende r. If the court imposes restitution, the court may base the amount of re stitution it orders on an amount recommended by the victim, the offender, a presentence investigation report, estimates or receipts indicating the cost of repairing or replacing property, and other information, provided that the amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the amount of the econo mic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense. {¶ 44} In accordance with R.C. 2929.28(A)(1), the trial court was required to determine the amount of restituti on to be paid by Myles. A lthough the court was permitted to rely on the presentence report prepared by the probation department , it was not permitted to delegate this responsibility for determining the amount of restitution to the probation department after imposition of sentence. The trial court erred in failing to determine the amount of restitution. See, also, State v. Purnell , 171 Ohio App.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-6160, 871 N.E.2d 613, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.); State v. Wilson , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-061000, 2007-Ohio-6339, ¶17; and State v. Sheehan , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-10-285, 2008-Ohio-2737, ¶ 19 (analogizing the felony financial sanctions imposed under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) to the misdemeanor financial sanctions impos ed under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1));
State v. Moore , 7th Dist. Carroll No. 00AP0741, 2002-Ohio-5047, ¶ 14. {¶ 45} R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) also provides that, “[i]f the court decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount of restitu tion.” In her third argument under this15 assignment, Myles does dispute the amount of restitution on appeal. (She had no opportunity to dispute it at trial.) Myles cla ims that Ely was not entitled to collect more than the amount of her deductible if the insura nce company paid to repair the car. The State concedes that, if the insurance company fixed the vehicle, Myles “should only be required to pay Ms. Ely’s deductible. * * * If not, [Myles ] should pay the full amount ordered by the
court.” {¶ 46} In Myles’s case, restitution was ordered as a condition of community control, and not as a part of her sentence. But the trial court s hould not be able to do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly, i.e., delegate to the probation department the responsibility for determining after the impositi on of sentence the amount of restitution, and, in doing so, deprive a defendant of a hearing on any disputed issue related to restitution. The trial court was required to determine the amount of restitution and, because the appropriate amount of re stitution is disputed, the trial c ourt was required to hold a hearing on this issue. {¶ 47} The fifth assignment of error is sustained. {¶ 48} The judgment of the trial court will be reversed with respect to its order of restitution, and the matter will be remanded for a determination of this issue by the trial court. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . FAIN, P.J. and HALL, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Raymond J. Dundes Dwight D. Brannon16 Matthew C. Schultz Hon. James L. Manning Hon. William H. Wolff, Jr.,Visiting Judge