[Cite as State v. Ford, 2013-Ohio-1883.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

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

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 2012CA00142 

CORTYCO C. FORD : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Alliance Municipal Court, 

Case No. 2012CRB00669 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 29, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant: For Appellee: 

 

BETH A. LIGGETT ANDREW L. ZUMBAR 

Stark County Public Defender’s Office Alliance City Law Director 

200 W. Tuscarawas Ave., Suite 200 470 E. Market St. 

Canton, OH 44702 Alliance, OH 44601 

 
Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Cortyco C. Ford appeals his conviction and 

sentence by the Alliance Municipal Court for one count of Domestic Violence in 

violation of R.C. 2919.25, a misdemeanor of the first degree. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} The Alliance Police Department arrested Defendant-Appellant Cortyco C. 

Ford on one charge of Domestic Violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, a misdemeanor 

of the first degree. Ford pleaded not guilty to the charge. A jury trial was held in the 

Alliance Municipal Court on June 28, 2012. The following evidence was adduced at 

trial. 

{¶3} On April 24, 2012, the Alliance Police Department responded to a call for 

assistance from Lisa Krepps at her residence on Summit Street in the City of Alliance, 

Stark County, Ohio. Defendant-Appellant Cortyco C. Ford was waiting in front of the 

home when Sergeant Akenra X arrived. Sgt. X testified Ford seemed agitated. Ford 

stated to Sgt. X that he and Krepps had gotten into a verbal argument and Ford did 

not touch Krepps. 

{¶4} Sgt. X entered the home and spoke with Krepps. Krepps and Ford have 

two children together. Krepps and Ford reside together with their two children and 

Ford’s four children from prior relationships. While Krepps and Ford live together, they 

are not romantically involved. 

{¶5} Krepps testified she and Ford had an argument about the usage of the 

Ohio Directional Card. The argument started in one room, but Krepps left the room to 

use the bathroom. Ford came into the bathroom while Krepps was seated on the 
toilet. He kicked at her and ended up kicking the wall beside her about a foot away 

from her head, because she moved over to the side. 

{¶6} Krepps left the bathroom and went into the bedroom. Ford and Krepps 

continued arguing. Ford pointed his index finger into Krepps’ forehead. Krepps 

started walking down the stairs and Ford came up behind her. He shoved the bottom 

part of his palm into the back of her head. It caused her an instant headache. She 

called 911 and told them she needed the police at her home. 

{¶7} Krepps testified there were red marks on her neck area after her 

argument with Ford. She told the police officers she did not know how she got the red 

marks on her neck. She knew she did not have red marks before the argument with 

Ford. Sgt. X took photographs of the red marks on Krepps’ neck. Krepps did not seek 

medical attention after the incident. 

{¶8} The jury found Ford guilty of Domestic Violence. The trial court 

sentenced Ford to 30 days in jail and suspended 20 days. The trial court gave Ford 

credit for 8 days served. The trial court also sentenced Ford to attend anger 

management classes and pay fines and court costs. 

{¶9} Ford filed an appeal of his conviction and sentence. 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶10} Ford raises one Assignment of Error: 

{¶11} “APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS 

AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

 
ANALYSIS 

{¶12} Ford argues in his sole Assignment of Error his conviction for domestic 

violence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶13} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing 

the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the 

credibility of witnesses and determines 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 overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio 

St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Reversing a conviction as being against the 

manifest weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only 

the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.

{¶14} R.C. 2919.25(A) states, “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to 

cause physical harm to a family or household member.” Ford argues the jury lost its 

way in convicting Ford of domestic violence because there was no visible physical 

injury to Krepps attributable to Ford. R.C. 2901.01(A)(3) defines “physical harm to 

persons” as “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its 

gravity or duration.” 

{¶15} The jury determined Ford’s actions caused harm or attempted to cause 

physical harm to Krepps. Krepps testified she did not have red marks on her neck 

before her argument with Ford and she had the marks after her argument with Ford. 

Sgt. X observed the red marks on Krepps’ neck and took photographs of the marks. 

Ford kicked at Krepps while she sat on the toilet but Krepps moved, causing Ford to 
kick the wall near her head. While walking down the stairs, Ford hit Krepps in the 

back of her head with his hand, causing her a headache. 

{¶16} R.C. 2919.25 does not require the State to prove the victim sustained any 

actual injury, “since a defendant can be convicted of domestic violence for merely 

attempting to cause physical harm.” State v. Ward, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-293, 2010-

Ohio-4614, ¶ 9 citing State v. Nielsen, 66 Ohio App.3d 609, 612, 585 N.E.2d 906 (6th 

Dist.1990); State v. Blonski, 125 Ohio App.3d 103, 114, 707 N.E.2d 1168 (9th 

Dist.1997) (“A defendant may be found guilty of domestic violence even if the victim 

sustains only minor injuries, or sustains no injury at all.”). 

{¶17} It appears the facts of this case demonstrate the verdict was not against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶18} The sole Assignment of Error of Defendant-Appellant Cortyco C. Ford is 

overruled. 

 
CONCLUSION 

{¶19} The judgment of the Alliance Municipal Court is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

PAD:kgb 

 

 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

 

-vsCORTYCO C. FORD 

 Defendant - Appellant 

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 Case No. 2012CA00142 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the 

Alliance Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER