[Cite as State v. Kitzilkaya , 2023

- Ohio

- 3989.] 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

S TATE OF OHIO , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs.
ISMET KIZILKAYA , Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO S

. C

- 230017 C

- 2 30018 TRIAL NO S

. C

- 22 CR B

- 11837

C

- 22 CRB

- 17504
O P I N I O N

.

Criminal Appeal s From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgmen t s Appealed From Are : Affir med Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 3, 2023

Melissa A. Powers , H amilton C ounty Prosecuting Attorney, and Judith Anton Lapp , Assistant P rosecuting Attorney , for Plaintiff

- Appell ee , Raymo nd T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender , and Lora Peters , Assistant Public Defen der , for Defendant

- Appell ant

.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2 K INSLEY , Judge. 

### {¶1} Follow ing a jury trial in the Hamilton County M unicipal C ourt , defendant

- appellant Ismet Kizilkaya was convicted of one count of domestic violence
in violation of R. C. 2919.25( A) and one count of violati ng a protection order in
violati on of R. C. 2919.2 7(A) , both misdemean ors of the first degree. In his si ngle assignment of er ror, Kizilkaya challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his
convictions. For the reaso ns set forth below, we aff irm Kizilkaya ’ s convictions.
Factu al and Procedural History 

### {¶2} Kizilkaya and the complain ing witness , Fidan Ozlem Pulten, are both
Turkish. The two g a ve different explana tions regarding the stat us of their relationship
at th e time of the incidents

. According to Pulte n, she a nd Kizilkaya had been in an
intimate rela tionshi p f or approximately six

- and

- half year s . They shared a one bedroom apartment in Blu e Ash , Ohio , and paid bills together. On the other hand, according to Kizi lkaya, t h e apartment was his alone and Pulten was only staying there
because she had been “ ki cked out ” of her previous residence. He paid all the bills , and Pulten only h elped pay rent occasionally. Kizil kaya was in a relationship with Mine Tekkanarya, who live d in New Jer sey. 

### {¶3} The charges against Kizilkaya stem from tw o differen t incidents
in volving Putle n. Domestic Violence Incident 

### {¶4} On July 13, 2022, around midnigh t, Kizilkaya and Pulten got in to an argument

. The two gave different accounts of how things unfolded th at night

. According to Pulten , the two began argui ng because she received text message s f or Kizilkaya ’ s girlfriend , Mine, and confronted him about it. The argument escalated andOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 Kizil kaya began yelling and cursing at her

. In response, Pulten covered Kizilkaya’s
mouth with her hand. Pulten testified tha t after she placed her han d over Kizilkaya ’s mouth, he hit he r in the left ch eek, left ear, and right back. Following the alte r cation,

s he grabbed her phone , went in to the hallway , and called 911. 

### {¶5} According to Kizilkaya, t he argument ensued beca use he was leaving the
apartme nt to go live with Mine in New Jers ey
. H e test ifie d that Pu l ten pushed him out of the apartment, locked th e door, and threatened to call the police and say that he
threatened her with a knife. After being put out, Kizilkaya testified t hat he we nt to the

garag e , g ot in his car , and left. He d enied putting his hands on Pulten. 

### {¶6} Following the argument, the pol ice were called, and Officer Peter Bronner responded. Bronner testified that the call was initially for an u nknown person
in trouble and that the details were vague due to the language barr ier , as Pulten speak s Turkish

. However, the call was later updated to indicate that a “ boyfriend ki ck ed a girlfriend ou t , ” and then again to an incid e nt involving some form of phy sical struggle. 

### {¶7} Bronner arrived on the s cene 1 3 minutes after midnight. Upon his
arrival , he sa w a silver Toyota R av4 pulling out of the garage

. He id entified Kizilkaya
as the driver at trial

. B ron ner observed red marks on Pulten while she was in the

a mbulance , including one on her shoulder and another behind her lef t ear. 

### {¶8} Kizilkaya left for New Jers ey before the police could talk with him

. Ultimately , he was char ged with domestic violence in viol ation of R.C. 2919. 25( A )

. He

was arra igned in September 202 2, and signed a temporary p rotection order stat ing that he would stay away from Pulten.
Violation

- of

- a - Protection

- Order IncidentOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4 

### {¶9} On Octo ber 7, 202 2, while sitting in the parking l ot of Artemis
Mediterranean Bistro , Kizilkaya pulled his car up next to Pulten ’ s , in the opposite
direction of her car. S h e could clearly see him because h er window was down

. Pulten
testif ied that Kizilkaya said , “ I will b ring your en d , ” wh ich she took as a threat , and he drove away. Foll owing this encounter, Pulten went ins ide the restauran t , but did no t call the police unt il the next day. 

### {¶10} Kizilkaya ’ s account of the incident differ s . Kizilkaya testified that on th is
part icular day he was d oing Door Dash orders with his gir lfriend, Mine. They received
an order at a restaurant called Napa, which is near Artemis. After arrivi ng to pick up
the orde r , he cancelled the order because t here was a del ay. Later that day, Ki zilkay a called the Montogom ery Police dispatch. He te stified that he was calling to see if there was a report made against him because he had seen Pulten whil e o ut. He tol d the

p olice that he did not speak to or approach her

. Dispatch let him know that no rep orts had been made. 

### {¶11} Ult imately, Kizilkaya was charged with violation of a protec tion order
under R.C. 2919.27( A)

. 

### {¶12} The jury convicted Kizilkaya of both th e domestic

- violence and protection

- order

- violation charges. On the domestic vi ol ence charge , he was

sente n ced to 180 days, with credit for one day, and a $250 fine. For violation

- of

- a protection order , he was s ente nce d to 180 d ays , with credit for 59 d ays, and a $2 50 fine. 

### {¶13} Ki zilkaya tim ely appealed.

Manifest WeightOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5 

### {¶14} In his sole assignment of error, Kizilkaya argues that his convictions were against th e manifest weight of the evidence. 

### {¶15} When reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, we
sit as a “thirteenth juror .” State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Unlike our review of a sufficiency challenge, review o f a manifest

- weight challenge requires us to independently “review th e entire record, weigh the evidence,

c ons ider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justic e. ” State v. Powell , 1st Dist.
Hami lton No. C

- 190508, 2020

- Ohio

- 4283, ¶ 16, citing Thompkins at 397. Howeve r, we will reverse the trial court’s decision to convict and grant a new trial only in “

‘ exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily ag ai nst the conviction. ’ ” State v. Sipple , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 190 462, 2021

- Ohio

- 1319, ¶ 7, quoting Stat e v
. Martin , 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E .2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
Domestic Viol ence 

### {¶16} Kizilkaya asserts that the evidence presented at trial of P ulten ’ s version
of even ts is no t credible. Pulten testified that Kizilkaya hit her multiple times af ter she pl aced her hand over his m outh. 1 Bronner testified that he observed red marks on
Pulten in the areas she said she was struck

. Although Ki zilkaya ’ s testimony differ s, th e jury heard all the testimony and found Kizilka ya guilty. The jury found the testimo ny of Pul ten, which w as corroborated by Bronn er ’ s testimony , to be more cr edib le than
the te stimony presented by Kizilkaya. After r eviewing the entire record , we find nothing to s uggest that the jury, in its evaluation of the evidence, clearly lost its way
and created a manifest miscarriage of justice that wou ld require us to re verse the

1 Kizilkaya did not raise a self

- defense claim

.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6 conviction and order a new trial

. See Thompkins at 387

. There f ore, we overru le this assignment of error as to the domestic

- violence c harg e. Violation of a Protection Order 

### {¶17} A s he does wi th the do mestic

- violence c onvi ction , Kizilkaya asserts t hat
Pulten ’ s account of what happened on October 7 is not credible. Pulten testified that
she was in her car in the Artemis rest aurant parking lot when Kizilkaya drove up and
threatened h er. She t estified that she clea rly s aw his face because her windo w was down

. Kizilkaya ’ s testimony put him in the area where the incident took place. In the
call Kizilkaya made to Montgomery Police , he state d tha t he and Pul ten saw each other

. This testimony l ends cred ence to Pu lten ’ s versio n of events. Moreover, t here is nothing in the record tha t su pports Kizilkaya ’ s ass ertion that Pulten ’ s testimony was not credible. After reviewing the entire record , weigh ing the evidence, considering the credibility of w itnesses, we cann ot say that th e jury clearly lost its wa y and created a manifest miscarriage of justice

. Id. Theref ore, we overrule Kizilkaya ’ s assig nment of
error as to the violation

- of

- a - protection

- or der cha rge.

Conclusion 

### {¶18} For the reasons set forth i n this opinion, w e affir m the ju d gment s of the
trial court. Judg men ts affirmed.

Z AYAS , P. J. , and B ERGERON , J. , concur .

Please n ote: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion

.