[Cite as State v. Szarell, 2019-Ohio-5175.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DUSTIN D. SZARELL : Case No. 2019 CA 00028 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00924 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 9, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JENNY GONZALEZ-WELLS JAMES ANZELMO 

20 South Second Street 446 Howland Drive 

Fourth Floor Gahanna, OH 43230 

Newark, OH 43055 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 2 

 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Dustin D. Szarell appeals the April 4, 2019 judgement 

of conviction and sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio. 

Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On December 11, 2018, appellant and his wife Danielle went to 

Reynoldsburg to visit Danielle's mother Luan Smith. Danielle was 8 months pregnant at 

the time. While at Smith's home, Danielle was using appellant's phone because hers had 

a dead battery. While using the phone, Danielle saw something on appellant's phone that 

upset her and she confronted appellant. 

{¶ 3} The two began arguing. When the argument got loud Luan asked them to 

stop, but they continued. Appellant then walked over to Danielle, who was seated on a 

loveseat, and rammed his knee into Danielle's thigh. Luan noted that Appellant rammed 

Danielle so hard that Danielle's belly shifted. Danielle immediately began crying. 

{¶ 4} Luan told appellant she was calling police. While she was on the phone, 

appellant was on his knees begging Danielle to refrain from "sending him to jail." He then 

got up and became loud and confrontational again. Luan told him to leave and he 

complied. 

{¶ 5} Reynoldsburg Police Officer Hanna Evans responded to Smith's home at 

approximately 5:45 p.m. She found Danielle upset, her face flushed, and her eyes red. 

Medics who were on standby came in to take a look at Danielle. She had no observable 

injury. 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 3 

{¶ 6} While that was going on, Reynoldsburg Police Officer Nathan Grodhaus 

attempted unsuccessfully to locate appellant. He then joined Officer Evans who was 

speaking with Danielle. Danielle refused transport to the emergency room, and did not 

submit a written statement. 

{¶ 7} Appellant was subsequently charged with domestic violence, a felony of the 

fifth degree. He pled not guilty and opted to proceed to a jury trial which took place on 

April 4, 2019. The state presented evidence from Smith, Evans, and Grodhaus who 

provided the above outlined facts. Appellant presented evidence from Danielle who 

testified appellant simply "nudged" her leg. 

{¶ 8} After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found appellant 

guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a mandatory 6 months incarceration. 

{¶ 9} Appellant filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for 

consideration. He raises three assignments of error as follow: 

I 

{¶ 10} "DUSTIN SZARELL'S CONVICTION IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 

SECTIONS 10 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." 

II 

{¶ 11} "DUSTIN SZARELL'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF 

THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 10 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 4 

III 

{¶ 12} "DUSTIN SZARELL RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OT THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." 

I, II 

{¶ 13} We address appellant's first and second assignments of error together. In 

his first assignment of error, appellant argues his conviction is not supported by sufficient 

evidence. In his second assignment of error, he argues his conviction is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶ 14} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at 

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State 

v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "The relevant inquiry is whether, 

after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). On review for manifest weight, a reviewing 

court is to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 

consider the credibility of witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the 

evidence, the jury 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. Martin, 20 Ohio 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 5 

App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio 

St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only 

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

Martin at 175. 

{¶ 15} Appellant was charged with domestic violence pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A) 

and (D)(1)(5) which provides: 

(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family 

or household member. 

* * * 

(D)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of domestic violence, and the court 

shall sentence the offender as provided in divisions (D)(2) to (6) of this section. 

* * * 

(5) Except as otherwise provided in division (D)(3) or (4) of this section, if the 

offender knew that the victim of the violation was pregnant at the time of the 

violation, a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section is a felony of the fifth 

degree, and the court shall impose a mandatory prison term on the offender 

pursuant to division (D)(6) of this section * * * . 

{¶ 16} Appellant argues that the evidence failed to show he caused or attempted 

to cause harm to Danielle, focusing on the lack of any visible injury. But the victim of a 

domestic violence need not suffer actual physical harm in order to support a conviction 

under R.C. 2919.25(A). Rather, an attempt to cause harm is sufficient. State v. Ford, 5th 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 6 

Dist. Stark No. 2012CA142, 2013-Ohio-1883 ¶ 16. Smith described and demonstrated for 

the jury appellant's attempt to cause physical harm by ramming his knee into Danielle's 

thigh "it looked like as hard as he could." T. 81. This action by appellant is sufficient to 

support the element of causing or attempting to cause harm. We therefore reject 

appellant's sufficiency argument. 

{¶ 17} Appellant next argues his conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because Smith was not believable vis-a-vis Danielle. It is well settled, however, 

that the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues 

for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 552 N.E.2d 180 (1990). The jury 

was free to accept or reject any or all of the evidence offered by the parties and assess 

the witness's credibility. Indeed, the jurors need not believe all of a witness's testimony, 

but may accept only portions of it as true. State v. Raver, Franklin App. No. 02AP-604, 

2003-Ohio-958, ¶ 21, citing State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). 

Upon review, we find nothing to indicate the jury in this matter lost it way in making its 

credibility determinations and believing Smith over Danielle. 

{¶ 18} Appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled. 

III 

{¶ 19} In his final assignment of error, appellant argues his counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to request the trial court waive court costs. We disagree. 

{¶ 20} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must 

demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel's performance fell 

below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel's errors 

prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 7 

result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–

688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 

538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. “Reasonable 

probability” is “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland 

at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 

{¶ 21} We have previously addressed this issue in State v. Davis, 5th Dist. Licking 

No. 17-CA-55 2017-Ohio-9445, wherein we determined the following at ¶ 27: 

We find no merit in Appellant's allegation that he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel as a result of his attorney failing to request that 

the trial court waive court costs. Because R.C. 2947.23(C) grants 

appellant the ability to seek waiver of costs at any time, including 

after sentencing, Appellant has not been prejudiced by the failure of 

his counsel to request a waiver at sentencing. 

{¶ 22} In support of his argument that failure of counsel to request a waiver of court 

costs at sentencing constitutes ineffective assistance, appellant cites State v. Springer, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104649, 2017-Ohio-8861. Springer conflicts with our decision in 

Davis, and that matter has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio upon 

our certification of a conflict. We held in State v. Ramsey, 5th Dist. Licking No. 17-CA-76, 

2018-Ohio-2365, as we hold here; “[u]nless a decision is rendered on the issue to the 

contrary in the future, this Court will continue to abide by its decision in Davis.” Id. See 
Licking County, Case No. 2019 CA 00028 8 

also State v. Somers, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0013, 2018-Ohio-4625; State v. 

Bowen, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0103, 2018-Ohio-4220. 

{¶ 23} Appellant's final assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 24} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

EEW/rw