[Cite as State v. Mills, 2022-Ohio-969.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-20-1084

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201902158

 

v.

Miguel Lamont Mills DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 25, 2022

* * * * *

Julie R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and

Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Emil Gravelle, III, for appellant

* * * * *

OSOWIK, J.

{¶ 1} This is a delayed appeal of a January 27, 2020, judgment of the Lucas Court 

of Common Pleas. Following a jury trial, appellant, Miguel Lamont Mills, was found 

guilty of felonious assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), with the attached 
2.

firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C), and (F), and discharging 

a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and 

(C)(2). For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.

{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following four assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred when it failed to conduct a competency 

hearing before Mr. Mills’ trial in violation of Mr. Mill’s right to due 

process rights underneath [the] 14th Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and Section 

2945.37 of the Ohio Revised Code.

2. The trial court erred in denying Appellant Miguel Mills’ Batson

objection of an African American juror being removed from the jury.

3. Appellant’s Conviction was Based on Insufficient Evidence.

4. Appellant’s Conviction was Against the Manifest Weight of 

Evidence.

I. Background

{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On July 9, 2019, 

appellant was indicted by a Lucas County Grand Jury on one count of felonious assault, 

in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a felony in the second degree, with firearm 

specifications in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C) and (F), and a second count of 

discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, in violation of R.C. 
3.

2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(2), a felony in the third degree. Appellee, state of Ohio, alleged 

that around noon on May 14, 2019, appellant ran out of a building near the intersection of 

Ontario and Walnut streets in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, where the victim was stopped 

at a stop sign in a white GMC SUV. As the vehicle moved on, appellant raised his arm, 

pointed a gun at the vehicle, and fired at least three shots, one of which struck the vehicle. 

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial.

{¶ 4} Prior to trial, on November 19, 2019, appellant filed a Motion for 

Competency and General Mental Health Assessment to determine his competence to 

understand the charges against him and to evaluate any plea offers presented. His 

attorney maintained that appellant’s mental stability had “completely evaporated,” and 

appellant could no longer have a reasonable conversation with his attorney about the 

evidence against him, review trial tactics, or review any plea offers. Further, his attorney 

maintained the last three visits with appellant resulted in appellant “becoming so verbally 

violent and physically telegraphing potential violence” and caused the intervention of 

corrections officers. Although the court’s journal does not reflect the trial court’s 

response to appellant’s motion, the record contains, with no objection by appellant, 

correspondence dated December 3, 2019 from The Court Diagnostic and Treatment 

Center and addressed to the trial court stating the letter is in response to the trial court’s 

November 21, 2019 referral for an evaluation of appellant of his competency to stand 

trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.371 and for a complete general psychological evaluation. The 
4.

referral could not be performed as scheduled on December 3 because appellant refused to 

be transported from the jail to The Court Diagnostic and Treatment Center.

{¶ 5} On December 9, 2019, the trial commenced with jury selection. During voir 

dire, the prosecution used one of its four peremptory challenges to strike an AfricanAmerican prospective juror who repeatedly expressed hesitancy towards rendering a 

judgment against a defendant, even if the evidence presented supported it. Appellant 

objected to that prospective juror’s removal pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 

106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). After hearing arguments from the parties, the trial 

court decided to excuse that prospective juror with the following explanation:

Court: Consistent with the answer [she] gave in the courtroom and 

then in chambers, she was struggling with her ability to make a decision 

based on her feelings of the weightiness of the decision and the impact it 

would have on individuals.

All of which are race neutral concerns that she had. In fact, our 

record, as built, would not even begin to show other than our own placing 

on the record by the parties and the Court that she is, you know, an African 

American female.

That being said, the reasons given by the State are race neutral. The 

concerns that [she] raised herself as far as her ability to render her service 

as a prospective juror not once gave any kind of indication that there was 
5.

any racial consideration being involved here, and the questions by the State, 

as well as Defense, would not have reflected any racial overtones or 

indications. The record is clear that this is a race neutral reason for the 

exercise of a peremptory challenge.

It is noted that the panel was drawn from the voter registration 

placed onto the Court by way of the Jury Commissioner’s Office and the 

order of which the slips are received is all random, and then the way the 

jurors are called into the box is a random reading of the names that are on 

the slips handed to the Court’s Criminal Bailiff without any knowledge of 

who they are until they’re called.

The process of who was selected is totally random up to the point 

where they were called to the box. From that point forward other than the 

order in which they were called there was questioning of the jurors, but 

everything would establish it is a fair process and race neutral reason for 

exercise of the peremptory.

{¶ 6} The record shows that through additional voir dire of potential jurors, the 

resulting 12-person jury panel contained one African-American. 

{¶ 7} During the two-day trial, the prosecution produced video evidence from 

multiple nearby apartment buildings and a Toledo police sky-cop camera that showed an 

African-American male chasing the victim’s white GMC SUV. He is seen with his right 
6.

arm extended toward the vehicle. Flashes are seen emanating from his extended hand. 

Multiple witnesses identified the man in the video as the appellant. Witnesses heard 

gunshots. Police at the scene observed a bullet hole in the victim’s vehicle. The victim 

did not allow authorities to inspect his vehicle because he did not want to pay for the 

repairs after the passenger-side door was taken apart by the police. The victim also did 

not appear for the trial, but the victim was interviewed at the scene and by a police 

detective.

{¶ 8} On December 10, 2019, the jury found appellant guilty of both counts and of 

the firearms specifications.

{¶ 9} On January 27, 2020, the trial court sentenced appellant on count one to a 

minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 7 and one-half years in prison. An additional term 

for the firearm specification of 3 years was imposed as a mandatory and consecutive term 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a). On count two, the court imposed a term of 

imprisonment of 36 months to run concurrently to count one and concurrently to the 14-

month reserve prison term ordered in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas case No. 

CR2019-01347. 

{¶ 10} On June 18, 2020, this court granted appellant’s motion to file a delayed 

appeal.
7.

II. Competency

{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred 

when it failed to conduct a competency hearing before trial. We do not concur. 

{¶ 12} Appellant argues that because he filed a Motion for Competency 

Examination before trial began, the court was required to hold a competency hearing

before trial. The prosecution never responded to his motion. However, appellant was 

expediently referred to Court Diagnostic for a competency examination after the motion 

was filed. 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2945.37(B) sets forth the procedure to be followed once an issue of 

competency has been raised before trial. It states, “In a criminal action in a court of 

common pleas, * * * the court, prosecutor, or defense may raise the issue of the 

defendant’s competence to stand trial. If the issue is raised before the trial has 

commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as provided in this section.”

{¶ 14} The Ohio Supreme Court has held, “there is no question that where the 

issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial is raised prior to the trial, a competency 

hearing is mandatory.” State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 109, 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986). 

{¶ 15} The underlying issue presented to the court in Bock is similar to the case 

before us today. More specifically, in Bock, defense counsel claimed that the defendant 

was in an intensive care unit after suffering an overdose of pills or drugs and requested a

R.C. 2945.37 hearing on his competency to stand trial. Id. at 108. The trial court ordered 
8.

an examination of the defendant but no report was filed, no hearing held, no court finding 

made, nor any formal waiver of any kind filed by the defendant or his counsel. Id. 

Nevertheless, after a review of the record, the court in Bock found that “the record reveals 

no adequate indication of any behavior on the part of the defendant which might indicate 

incompetency.” Id. at 111. 

{¶ 16} “A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial.” R.C. 

2945.37(G). To overcome the presumption, legal incompetence comprises the 

defendant’s capabilities of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings and 

of assisting in the defendant’s defense. R.C. 2945.37(G). “[T]he term ‘mental illness’

does not necessarily equate with the definition of legal incompetency.” State v. Berry, 72 

Ohio St.3d 354, 362, 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995). “Incompetency must not be equated with 

mere mental or emotional instability or even with outright insanity. A defendant may be 

emotionally disturbed or even psychotic and still be capable of understanding the charges 

against him and of assisting his counsel.” Bock at 110.

{¶ 17} In the record before us, on November 12, 2019, the trial court’s journalized 

entry set the trial date for December 9, 2019. At the November 4 hearing, appellant had 

repeatedly expressed his agitation with delaying the trial and with his perception of a 

violation of his speedy trial rights. Thereafter, the trial court responded to appellant’s 

November 19 motion for a competency evaluation by making a referral for that 

evaluation on November 21. R.C. 2945.371(A). There is no indication that appellant did 
9.

not know his trial date was on December 9 at the time of his November 19 motion or at 

the time he refused his competency evaluation on December 3. Appellant had a duty to 

cooperate with the competency evaluation he requested. R.C. 2945.371(C)(1). Appellant 

had a further duty to cooperate with the transportation from his place of custody to the 

place of the competency evaluation. R.C. 2945.371(D)(2). Appellant violated these 

duties. After appellant intentionally thwarted his scheduled competency evaluation on 

December 3, and then failed to argue for or give any indication of incompetency between 

December 3 and the start of trial, the trial court commenced his trial on December 9.

{¶ 18} Nevertheless, appellant argues that the trial court’s November 21 referral

“suggests that the trial court had an indicium of incompetency of the Appellant.” 

Appellant further argues that the history of his interactions with the court supports his 

claim of incompetence. 

{¶ 19} Specifically, appellant argues that on July 31, 2019, at his initial 

appearance in this case that was preceded by sentencing on another case to which he pled 

guilty, he told the trial court, “[I feel] Like I’ve been bamboozled. Even signing the 

waiver to come across with the other case. [My attorney] told me things, and everything 

she told me is not even happening. So you know what I’m saying? I’m really lost, really, 

you know what I mean? I feel like I have been railroaded.” However, we find the 

foregoing statement was made in response to the following question by trial court wholly 

separate from appellant’s competency to stand trial in this matter: “Mr. Mills, as it 
10.

relates to the charge where you have pled, and that is the possession of a controlled 

substance, the felony of the fourth degree, anything you would like to say by way of 

sentencing?” Despite pertaining to a different case, appellant’s statement shows that on 

that date was able to understand and respond to the question posed by the trial court.

{¶ 20} Appellant also cites to another exchange that occurred during the 

November 4, 2019 hearing. The original trial date was set for October 21, but 

rescheduled for November 4 at appellant’s request. On November 4 the trial court 

explained that it was required to start a trial for homicide case that day, which took

precedence over all other pending cases, including appellant’s, seeking to proceed to trial 

that day.

Defendant: They are violating my rights.

Court: Sir, you can say that too. Give me a moment, please. 

(Whereupon, a discussion was held at the Bench.)

Defendant: There is (sic.) a whole lot of things going on in this 

Court.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held at the Bench.)

Defendant: Well over my 90 days in custody. Well over my 90 

days. 

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)
11.

Defendant: Modern day slavery man. That’s all this is. Guilty till 

proven innocent instead of innocent until proven guilty.

{¶ 21} Also, during this same hearing, appellant points to his response to the trial 

court and the attorneys for both parties confirming that appellant made the prior request 

for a new trial date:

Defendant: You up until—[my attorney] assured me November 4th it 

(sic.) was nothing in the way. Then he came to see me Friday, and he --

and he-- and he made --he shouted out there is a possibility -- which I was 

guaranteed. I was ready for trial. It’s like I’m sitting in here. I am 

innocent for what I am in here for. The system, say innocent until proven 

guilty. I feel like I’m guilty until proven innocent.

{¶ 22} The foregoing exchange with the trial court, again, shows appellant was 

agitated, not incompetent. The record confirms appellant’s statements were made in 

response to the trial court’s explanation that while appellant was “over the 90 days of in 

custody,” he was “not over the 90 days on the speedy trial calculation.” 

{¶ 23} Finally, appellant referred to a statement he made on December 9 in the 

judge’s chambers and outside of the jury’s hearing that the voir dire process of 

peremptory challenges was “racist.” The trial court’s extensive explanation of its raceneutral findings for the removal of juror No. 4 leads us, again, to find that appellant was 

agitated, not incompetent.
12.

{¶ 24} Appellant relies on his in- and out-of-court behavior and statements as 

cumulative evidence of his “obvious” incompetency. However, given the definition of 

incompetency as set forth in Bock, appellant’s behavior, while aggressive, hostile, and

disruptive, are not sufficient indicia of mental incompetency. Nothing in the record 

establishes that appellant was incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the 

proceedings against him or of assisting in his defense. R.C. 2945.37(G).

{¶ 25} In fact, despite appellant’s claims of apparent incompetence, he was 

extremely lucid and astutely recalled what occurred during his past courtroom 

appearances. After appellant made the foregoing statements to the trial court on 

November 4, 2019, he then said, “But I read my rights to speedy trial rights, and the 

formalities to speedy trial. They say there is no more than 120 days. Instead you keep 

pushing my date back.” This statement clearly establishes that appellant was quite 

capable of assisting in his own defense, but for his own selectively-timed and deliberate 

misbehavior. At the conclusion of appellant’s lengthy arguments in favor of his 

interpretation of his speedy trial rights, the trial court gave a lengthy response and ended 

with, “You are welcome to have an appeal on that issue. I need to call my next case 

because I need to get to trial on the case that is going to trial today. I appreciate you are 

upset. I am giving you as much deference as I can, but I have to move to the next case. 

Thank you.” The record shows appellant was upset, not incompetent.
13.

{¶ 26} Like counsel in Bock, appellant’s attorney in this case, after filing the 

original motion for a hearing, failed ever again to mention appellant’s competency until 

set forth in an assignment of error in this appeal.

{¶ 27} Without sufficient indicia of incompetency appearing in the record, and 

where the record contains evidence of appellant’s capability of understanding the charges 

against him and of assisting his counsel, we conclude that the failure of the trial court to 

hold a mandatory competency hearing was harmless error and did not interfere with his 

right to a fair trial. See State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566, 179 

N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 67, citing Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d at 110, 502 N.E.2d 1016.

{¶ 28} We find that appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken. 

III. Batson Challenge to Juror Removal

{¶ 29} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred 

when it denied his objection, pursuant to Batson, to the removal through a peremptory 

challenge of juror No. 4, who was the only African-American prospective juror at that 

time. Appellant argued the prosecution’s race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory 

challenge to remove juror No. 4 – her equivocation and hesitation of whether she could 

be an appropriate juror for either side –was a pretext for racial discrimination because 

“every juror’s conscience will affect the outcome of trial.”

{¶ 30} Appellant concedes that initially the prosecution attempted to remove juror 

No. 4 for cause because “she was unable to be certain that she could follow instructions 
14.

and have the issue with judgment.” Crim.R. 24(B) allows the court and the parties to 

examine prospective jurors “prior to any challenges for cause or peremptory challenges.” 

When the prosecution asked during voir dire in the courtroom if any prospective juror 

had a problem “sitting in judgment of others * * * not * * * to judge a person * * * [but]

to judge the facts and the evidence presented to you,” juror No. 4 signaled that she did: 

“I’m sorry. I don’t know about that. I don’t feel comfortable with the judgment thing. I 

don’t. * * * I don’t know how I feel about that. I don’t feel comfortable.”

{¶ 31} The defendant, defense counsel, the prosecution, and the judge then left the 

courtroom for the judge’s chambers to address juror issues. Upon the trial court’s 

invitation, both parties declined to bring juror No. 4 into chambers for further voir dire 

examination. At that time, two potential jurors were African American, one of whom 

was juror No. 4. Defense counsel expressed a concern to the trial court if the jury panel 

“dropped below that.” The trial court responded “[t]hat would depend on how the parties 

use their challenges whether for cause or peremptory, and whether or not any strike[,] of 

what presumably could be a request to strike an African American juror[,] what the 

foundation and the basis would be for the striking of that juror.”

{¶ 32} The prosecution then challenged juror No. 4 for cause “indicating that she 

questions as to whether she would be able to make judgments.” The prosecution further 

explained, “Our recollection of her responses was that even when pressed with a 

question, you are not judging the person, you are judging the evidence, she continued to 
15.

equivocate and not be definitive in her response as to whether she would follow the rules 

requiring a guilty verdict if the facts are presented in a way that proved the case beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” The prosecution concluded, “For that reason, because she was unable 

to be certain that she could follow instructions and have that issue with judgment, we 

would ask she be removed for cause.”

{¶ 33} The defense argued that juror No. 4 was able to articulate that she could 

“render judgment based upon the facts. So I would ask that she remain.”

{¶ 34} The trial court then brought juror No. 4 into chambers to further explore 

her hesitancy to serve as a juror.

Court: The way that I want to ask about it is in this case the State 

will present what they believe the facts and evidence is in this case. The 

Defense will have an opportunity to challenge and question about that as 

well as present, if they would like, other facts in evidence to help you with 

the case, and then you would be sent back as a juror after receiving the 

Court’s instructions, arguments by the parties, to make a decision. That is 

what I set up. You will go make a decision.

How do you feel in this situation now that you have had time to hear 

further questions and think about it? Can you go back in a jury room and 

work with 11 other jurors and make a decision based upon the facts and 

evidence presented to you in the courtroom?
16.

Juror: I can. I don’t feel comfortable, because I just feel like it is 

still going to affect that person. I mean I feel like I’m judging. I can do 

that, but ultimately it is going to be my conscience that regardless of what 

my answer is and everybody else’s, if that person is, you know, guilty or 

not. * * * It just bothers me. I’m not comfortable with it. I feel like it is 

some type of judgment. Even though I can judge on the facts it is still 

going to affect the outcome. 

* * *

Prosecution: Do you feel that that weight on your conscience, are 

you absolutely certain that that won’t impact your deliberation and your 

verdict? Can you say definitively you’re going to * * * render a verdict 

solely based on the evidence and not [on] any of the stuff you talked about 

with that sort of weight on your conscience?

Juror: I think it will. I mean, I know it would be difficult, but I think 

it will. Like I said, I’m not comfortable with it. It would still bother me.

Prosecutor: Okay.

Juror: So it would still bother me.

Prosecutor: You are saying you are uncertain.

Juror: It will be fair, but I’m like -- I guess what you are saying I 

could be fair, but it’s still -- like I said with the outcome – depending on the 
17.

outcome regardless of how I feel about my feelings on the facts that are 

presented to me, it still -- I feel like it is still part of the outcome and still 

would bother me.

Prosecutor: Sure. I think my final question is if you were the 

attorney for [appellant] or attorney for the State of Ohio would you feel 

comfortable with you as a juror? Knowing how you may react and respond 

with that conscience and –

Juror: I – I – would I feel comfortable with – I don’t – I don’t know. 

I mean they are entitled – I mean it just depends how they – how they 

personally take it, how it would affect them after the fact. So I’m going to 

say I don’t know. I mean I wouldn’t be mad if they feel that way, because 

they are entitled to their opinion if that’s how they feel, and it is something 

that weighs on them, no. But if it is the way they feel and it is their 

opinion.

{¶ 35} After juror No. 4 left chambers, the prosecution renewed its challenge for 

cause, to which defendant objected. The trial court immediately denied the challenge for 

cause. The parties then continued their for-cause challenges pursuant to Crim.R. 24(C). 

At the conclusion of the for-cause challenges, they then proceeded with peremptory 

challenges of up to four prospective jurors each pursuant to Crim.R. 24(D). The 

prosecution exercised its first peremptory challenge to remove juror No. 4. The defense 
18.

objected, “I would just ask my objection be on the record as to the Batson criteria, Your 

Honor.” The trial court then heard arguments from the parties.

{¶ 36} The prosecution argued that juror No. 4 consistently showed “equivocation 

with respect to whether in her mind her conscience will [affect] the outcome. * * * I 

think I asked will it affect the outcome, and there was a great deal of hesitation and 

concern, and unable to, I believe, say whether she would find herself to be an appropriate 

juror for either side, so that would be the * * * race neutral reasons for using the 

peremptory on [her].”

{¶ 37} In response, the defense argued that juror No. 4’s answers during voir dire 

show her “to be one of the more honest jurors in that when she spoke freely of her issues 

concerning how difficult [it] is to be a juror and to render judgment, she, as it stands now, 

is the only African American on the jury pool. And with [potential juror No. 12] as 

basically the last individual it would be eliminating the one African American on the jury 

pool, and I would just note my objection to her being removed.”

{¶ 38} During the process in chambers where the parties alternately exercised their 

peremptory challenges of jurors, including juror No. 4 and seven other jurors, each was 

excused by the trial court pursuant to Crim.R. 24(E). During the discussion of the 

peremptory challenge of juror No. 4, appellant is recorded as stating, “This is racist.” To 

complete the jury selection process, additional prospective jurors were thereafter 
19.

summoned for voir dire. When the jury was eventually empaneled, one juror, juror No. 

12, was an African-American. 

{¶ 39} There is a three-part process to determine whether a prosecutor has used 

peremptory challenges in a way that violates the Equal Protection Clause. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). First, the 

defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory 

challenges on the basis of race. Id., citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 

L.Ed.2d 69. Second, if the defendant made that showing, the prosecutor must then show 

that the choice to strike the juror had a race-neutral basis. Id., citing Batson at 97-98. 

Third, the court must determine whether the defendant has proved purposeful 

discrimination from the foregoing showings. Id., citing Batson at 98. 

{¶ 40} In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider the 

circumstances of the challenge and assess the plausibility of the prosecutor’s explanation 

for discriminatory pretext. State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518, 2015-Ohio-4903, 45 

N.E.3d 208, ¶ 21, citing Cockrell at 339 and State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-

Ohio-5048, 873 N.E.2d 1263, ¶ 65. Although the record shows that both appellant and 

juror No. 4 are African American, racial identity between the defendant and the excused 

juror is irrelevant to a defendant’s standing to claim a discriminatory use of peremptory 

challenges. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 416, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).
20.

{¶ 41} Appellant points to juror No. 4’s undisputed race as African American as 

satisfying the first part of a Batson challenge. The prosecution then points to the raceneutral reasons stated on the record. We find the trial court then provided extensive 

analysis for its determination that the peremptory challenge of juror No. 4 was for raceneutral reasons and that defendant failed to prove purposeful discrimination. “We defer 

to a trial court’s resolution of a Batson challenge absent a showing of clear error.” 

Johnson at ¶ 23, citing State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254, 2014-Ohio-4751, 23 

N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 53. 

{¶ 42} We reviewed the record and do not find the trial court’s decision to deny 

appellant’s objection to the peremptory challenge of juror No. 4 was clearly erroneous. 

State v. Williams, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1186, 2019-Ohio-2657, ¶ 28. Accordingly, 

we find that appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in denying a Batson 

objection for the removal of an African-American prospective juror.

{¶ 43} We find appellant’s second assignment of error not well-taken and it is 

denied.

IV. Sufficiency of Evidence

{¶ 44} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts that his convictions were

based on insufficient evidence. Appellant argues the only “reliable” evidence in this case 

“is that there were shots fired and the Defendant ran after the white SUV.” Appellant 

further argues such evidence is insufficient proof “beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
21.

Defendant had a firearm or deadly weapon and in fact used any such weapon on May 14, 

2019.”

{¶ 45} “The test for sufficiency of the evidence 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.’” State v.

Worley, 164 Ohio St.3d 589, 2021-Ohio-2207, ¶ 57, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional

amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 

N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 

61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). In making that determination, the appellate court will not weigh 

the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses, as the legal concept of sufficiency 

of evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. 

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-87, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

{¶ 46} First, to sustain appellant’s conviction for count one, felonious assault, the 

jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved that appellant

did knowingly on May 14, 2019, in Lucas County, Ohio, “cause or attempt to cause 

physical harm to another * * * by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordinance.” 

R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). Felonious assault is a second-degree felony. R.C. 2903.11(D)(1)(a).

{¶ 47} Next, to maintain a conviction with the firearm specifications, the jury must 

believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved appellant “had a firearm 
22.

on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control while committing the 

offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender 

possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate the offense.” R.C. 2941.145(A). A 

“firearm” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2923.11. R.C. 2941.145(F). The firearm 

specification carries a mandatory three-year prison term that is precluded in specific 

circumstances. R.C. 2941.145(A) and (B).

{¶ 48} Last, to uphold a conviction for count two, discharging a firearm on or near 

a prohibited premises, the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

prosecution proved that appellant “discharge[d] a firearm upon or over a public road or 

highway.” R.C. 2923.162(A)(3). If the discharge “created a substantial risk of physical 

harm to any person or caused serious harm to property,” then the violation is a thirddegree felony. R.C. 2923.162(C)(2). 

{¶ 49} The prosecution produced sufficient evidence at trial that could convince a 

reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements of the foregoing 

offenses. The prosecution produced multiple angles of video footage of an assailant with 

a firearm running on a street and chasing the victim’s white GMC SUV, also on the same 

street. A Toledo police officer identified appellant as the person in the video because he 

saw appellant wearing the same attire of dark pants, dark sweatshirt, with a red Polo 

emblem, 20 to 30 minutes prior to the incident. Another witness testified she knew 

appellant and was certain she had seen appellant near the scene. Multiple witnesses saw 
23.

appellant extend his arm firing towards the victim’s vehicle and heard the gunshots

emanating from him. The videos showed sparks emitting from the assailant’s hand. 

Police arriving at the scene found a bullet hole on the passenger’s side of the victim’s 

vehicle. 

{¶ 50} Appellant argues that since the videos do not show the assailant carrying a 

gun or displaying a firearm, he cannot be found guilty of the offenses. We disagree. The 

jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the man in the video wearing 

distinctive clothing firing a gun, which caused gunshot sounds and visual sparks, and 

associated still photographs, is appellant, rather than allegedly pointing an empty hand 

towards the victim’s vehicle. A jury could reasonably conclude that appellant acted 

knowingly because he is seen chasing the victim’s vehicle and firing towards it while 

both are on a public street, rather than allegedly running away from shots fired from the 

vehicle at appellant. A jury could reasonably conclude that the bullet hole on the 

passenger-side door of the victim’s vehicle came from appellant’s weapon, rather than 

allegedly caused by the victim’s own shots fired from his vehicle or, alternatively, from 

some unidentified, other person. A jury could reasonably conclude that appellant likely 

knew his actions while on the street could cause serious harm, rather than allegedly 

initiated by the victim while paused at the stop sign before appellant came out to the 

street. A jury could reasonably conclude that a firearm was under appellant’s control 

while he was committing the underlying offenses.
24.

{¶ 51} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we 

find that there was sufficient evidence produced at trial, that any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the offenses proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. For the foregoing reasons, we find this assignment of error not well-taken and 

denied. 

V. Manifest Weight of the Evidence

{¶ 52} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant asserts that his convictions were

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant adopts the same arguments that 

he raised in his third assignment of error concerning the sufficiency of evidence. 

Appellant contends that the state failed to present any evidence that he had a firearm or 

deadly weapon or used any firearm or weapon at the time of the offense.

{¶ 53} When reviewing a manifest weight claim, we sit as a “thirteenth juror.” 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541. That is, we review the entire record, 

weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of 

witnesses. Id. Our role is to 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.’” Id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 

Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). We reverse a conviction on 

manifest weight grounds for only the most “exceptional case in which the evidence 

weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id., quoting Martin at 175. This court “will not 
25.

substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts on issues such as witness credibility, 

unless it is patently apparent that the trier of facts lost its way in arriving at its verdict.”

State v. Brown, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1052, 2021-Ohio-1674, ¶ 57, quoting State v.

Foust, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. Civ.A. 20470, 2005-Ohio-440, ¶ 28.

{¶ 54} We are not convinced this case is one of those situations. The jury 

considered the testimony and video evidence of the assailant identified by witnesses as 

appellant. That person is seen chasing the victim’s vehicle with his arm extended and 

flashes emitting from the end of his hand, where a gun would be located. As noted, there 

were other witnesses that identified appellant at the scene and saw him shoot at the 

vehicle. 

{¶ 55} Upon consideration, we find the jury chose to believe the testimony of the 

eyewitnesses as well as the videos. On review of that decision, we cannot say that the 

jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that appellant’s 

convictions must be reversed. Accordingly, appellant’s convictions are not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence, and we find this assignment of error not well-taken and 

is denied.

VI. Conclusion

{¶ 56} We affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.

Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.
26.

State of Ohio

v. Miguel Lamont Mills

L-20-1084

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, P.J. 

____________________________

JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. 

CONCURS IN JUDGMENT

ONLY. ____________________________

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.