[Cite as State v. Safo, 2022-Ohio-4746.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 111381

v. :

BRIANA SAFO, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 29, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-21-662091-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Christopher Woodworth, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Allison F. Hibbard, for appellant. 

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

Briana Safo (“Safo”) appeals her assault and obstructing official 

business convictions. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we 

affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on July 31, 2021, East Cleveland Police 

Officer Travis Thompson (“Off. Thompson”) was on patrol duty when he saw a 

vehicle driving on Superior Avenue faster than the 25 m.p.h. speed limit. Off. 

Thompson initiated a traffic stop as the car turned onto Euclid Avenue. The driver 

did not stop, continued to speed, lost control of the car, and crashed into another 

vehicle. As Off. Thompson was attempting to arrest the driver, Safo arrived on the 

scene, parked her car in the middle of the street, and approached Off. Thompson. 

Off. Thomson instructed Safo to do two things: stand back and move her car from 

the middle of the street. Safo did not follow either order and instead began yelling 

at Off. Thompson. Off. Thompson attempted to arrest Safo for obstructing official 

business, and as he grabbed her arm to handcuff her, she punched him. The incident 

was captured on video from Off. Thompson’s body camera. 

On August 31, 2021, Safo was charged with assault in violation of 

R.C. 2903.13(A), a fourth-degree felony, with a furthermore clause indicating that 

the victim was a peace officer; and, obstructing official business, a fifth-degree 

felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), with a furthermore clause indicating that Safo 

“created a risk of physical harm to [Off.] Thompson.”

After a bench trial, on February 24, 2022, the court found Safo guilty 

as indicted and sentenced her to one year of community-control sanctions. It is from 

these convictions that Safo appeals.
II. Trial Testimony

Off. Thomson testified that he was on patrol duty on the night of 

July 30, 2021, into the morning of July 31, 2021, in East Cleveland. Off. Thompson 

testified as follows about the events giving rise to the incident at issue in this case:

So I was in my patrol car sitting behind a plaza near Euclid and 

Superior just to the east of Euclid. And I had my window down, and I 

heard tires squealing coming from the east of my direction. And then 

when I looked out the window, I saw a car driving west on Superior at 

what I visually estimated to be about 60 miles per hour. The speed limit 

up there is 25.

When the car passed me, I pulled out of the parking lot and tried to get 

behind the car. The light at the intersection of Euclid and Superior was 

red. He made a right turn onto Euclid from Superior, didn’t stop for 

the red light before making the turn. And we were both on Euclid. I 

got behind him, turned my lights on, tried to make a traffic stop. He 

didn’t stop. He instead accelerated.

He was going east on Euclid, and then he tried to turn right to go south 

on Forest Hills Boulevard at a high rate of speed. He lost control of the 

vehicle. He crashed into a concrete barrier that separated the north 

and south lanes on Forest Hills Boulevard. He drove over the barrier 

and crashed into a Toyota Camry that was coming northbound stopped 

at the red light, and the impact caused the Camry to ricochet into a 

traffic box or an electrical box that controlled the traffic signals, and 

that disabled the traffic lights.

Off. Thompson testified that he ordered the driver, Bilyion Sims

(“Sims”), “out of the car at gunpoint and had him lay on the ground. He complied, 

and I approached him to place him in handcuffs while he was laying on the ground.” 

Off. Thompson testified about what happened next:

While I was attempting to put [Sims] in handcuffs, [Safo] approached 

the scene. She parked her car * * * in the southbound lanes of travel on 

Forest Hills Boulevard right next to my patrol car. So she was 

essentially blocking the lane.
And she approached me and told me not to do that to her brother while 

I’m trying to place him in handcuffs. I ordered her several times to get 

away from me or to back up and to move her car out of the roadway. 

And I was able to put [Sims] in the handcuffs, and I was still ordering 

her to move her vehicle at which point she refused. She told me not to 

talk to her because she’s grown.

And at that point, I believe my backup arrived * * * so she was able to 

watch over [Sims] while I attempted to put [Safo] in handcuffs for 

obstructing official business.

Off. Thompson testified that he was the only officer on the scene until 

backup arrived. According to Off. Thompson, “[i]t was a very high-stressed 

situation. It was a little out of control. There was a lot going on, and there’s people 

around me. [Sims] just ran from me. I don’t know what he was running for. I don’t 

know what all these people are trying to do, you know, coming up.” Despite Off. 

Thompson telling Safo “multiple times” to back up and move her car, she “still hadn’t 

done so. She was yelling, and I was trying to get her attention and yell over her and 

[tell her to] move her car or it would be towed. And at that point, she decided she 

didn’t want to move her car. She told me not to talk to her.”

Off. Thompson grabbed Safo’s arm because he “was intending to 

place her under arrest.” Asked what occurred next, Off. Thompson stated, “She 

punched me in the face, right on my eye. * * * She punched me several times and 

caused a black eye, cause me to have a black eye under my right eye.” Off. Thompson 

testified that he “had to use force * * * to get her to stop trying to punch me, and I 

was able to take her to the ground.” After Off. Thompson got Safo on the ground, he 

“put her in handcuffs without any other force being used.” 
According to Off. Thompson, while he was handcuffing Sims, he could 

hear Safo, but he could not see her until after Sims was handcuffed. He did not know 

at the time that Safo had a cell phone in her hand and may have been recording the 

events unfolding. 

Off. Thompson’s body-cam video of the incident was played during 

trial. After watching this video in court, Off. Thompson agreed that, while he was 

attempting to handcuff Safo, he pulled her hood over her head. Specifically, Off. 

Thompson testified as follows:

I grabbed her arm which her phone was in because it was the closest 

arm to me. I was going to put them behind her back. She then turned 

and punched me with her right arm because the cell phone was in the 

left arm. She turned, punched me several times with the right arm * * *. 

And at that point, I guess, in the course of it, I pulled her hood over her 

head. I didn’t realize at the time that’s what I was doing. 

* * * 

I think it kind of just kind of happened. There was a lot of flailing 

around going on, and then her hood just came over her head. That was 

not my intention to pull her hood over her head.

III. Law and Analysis

Safo raises four assignments of error for our review, which we address 

out of order for ease of discussion.

I. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to 

suppress.

II. Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to call Tenisha Safo as a 

witness on behalf of the defense.

III. The verdict as to Count One (1) cannot be upheld because the 

evidence presented at trial did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.
IV. The verdict as to Count Two (2) cannot be upheld because the 

evidence presented at trial did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence and Manifest Weight of the Evidence

Safo’s third and fourth assignments of error challenge the sufficiency 

and manifest weight of the evidence presented at the bench trial. “[A]n appellate 

court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal 

conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such 

evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of defendant’s guilt beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). 

“In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Whether the evidence is legally 

sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio

St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

A manifest weight of the evidence challenge “addresses the evidence’s 

effect of inducing belief. * * * In other words, a reviewing court asks whose evidence 

is more persuasive — the state’s or the defendant’s?” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 

382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. “When a court of appeals reverses a 

judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence, the appellate court sits as the ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the 

factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Thompkins at 387. Reversing 

a conviction under a manifest weight theory “should be exercised only in the 

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

v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
1. Assault of a Peace Officer

Pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(A), “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or 

attempt to cause physical harm to another * * *.” R.C. 2903.13(C)(5) states that “[i]f 

the victim of the offense is a peace officer * * *, while in the performance of their 

official duties, [the] assault is a felony of the fourth degree.”

In the instant case, Off. Thompson’s testimony established that Safo 

punched him in the face “multiple times” while he was on duty as a patrol officer, 

causing him to have a black eye. The body-cam video played during trial is short 

and chaotic, and it fails to show whether Safo punched Off. Thompson. However,

that conclusion is not inconsistent with Off. Thompson’s testimony. Ohio courts 

have consistently held that the “testimony of a single witness, if believed by the 

finder of fact, is sufficient to support a criminal conviction.” State v. Booker, 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-42, 2015-Ohio-5118, ¶ 18.

Upon review, we find that the state presented sufficient evidence to 

convict Safo of assaulting a police officer. Furthermore, this evidence was 

undisputed, and we find that Safo’s conviction is not against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. Accordingly, Safo’s third assignment of error is overruled. 

2. Obstructing Official Business

Pursuant to R.C. 2921.31(A), “[n]o person, without privilege to do so 

and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official 

of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that 

hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful 
duties.” R.C. 2921.31(B) states that “[i]f a violation of this section creates a risk of 

physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth 

degree.”

Our review of the body-cam video played at trial shows that when Off. 

Thompson was handcuffing Sims, he was on the ground in between Sims’s vehicle 

and the vehicle that Sims crashed into. Headlights from cars travelling on the street 

are seen throughout the incident. Safo, with a cell phone in her hand, is standing 

over Off. Thompson’s right shoulder. Though Safo only comes into view when Off. 

Thompson turns his body toward her, it is clear that she is screaming at him. 

Further, Safo parked her car in the road, creating an additional traffic hazard while 

Off. Thompson was effectuating the arrest of Sims. Safo refused to move her car, 

despite Off. Thompson repeatedly ordering her to do so. 

Upon review, we find that Safo’s conduct, as testified to by Off. 

Thompson and showed in his body-cam video, hampered or impeded him from 

performing his duties that night. He told her multiple times to stay back and move 

her car from the middle of the street while he was arresting Sims. It was a chaotic 

and potentially dangerous situation, and she distracted him from performing his 

job. This evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for obstructing official 

business, and this is not a case where the evidence weighed so heavily in favor of 

acquittal that the court lost its way as the factfinder in convicting Safo. Accordingly, 

Safo’s fourth assignment of error is overruled. 
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 

must establish that his or her attorney’s performance was deficient and that the 

defendant was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, “a court need not 

determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the 

prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. The object 

of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance.” Id. at 697. See 

also State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 3743 (1989).

1. Failure to File Motion to Suppress

‘“Failure to file a suppression motion does not constitute per se 

ineffective assistance of counsel.’” State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 721 

N.E.2d 52 (2000), quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 

2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). “Rather, a trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to 

suppress constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel only if there is a reasonable 

probability that, had the motion to suppress been filed, it would have been granted 

and that suppression of the challenged evidence would have affected the outcome of 

the case.” State v. Antio, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110658, 2022-Ohio-1398, ¶ 19.

Upon review of Off. Thompson’s testimony at trial, which was 

substantially consistent with his body-cam video of the incident, we find that Safo 

has failed to show a reasonable probability that a motion to suppress, had one been 

filed, would have been granted. As discussed in our analysis of Safo’s third and 
fourth assignments of error, the evidence presented at trial showed that Safo 

obstructed official business and assaulted a police officer. Nothing in the record 

suggests that Off. Thompson effected an illegal arrest of Safo, and we find that filing 

a motion to suppress in this case would have been futile. Accordingly, Safo’s first 

assignment of error is overruled. 

2. Failure to Call Tenisha Safo as a Witness

“Generally, counsel’s decision whether to call a witness falls within 

the rubric of trial strategy and will not be second guessed by a reviewing court.” 

State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490, 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001). This court has held 

that “the mere failure to call witnesses does not render counsel’s assistance 

ineffective absent a showing of prejudice.” State v. Scruggs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 107860, 2019-Ohio-3043, ¶ 39. Furthermore, it well-established that the failure 

to call a witness for a trial “is not a substantial violation of defense counsel’s essential 

duty to his client in the absence of any showing that the testimony * * * would have 

assisted the defense to the indictment.” State v. Reese, 8 Ohio App.3d 202, 203, 456 

N.E.2d 1253 (1st Dist.1982).

In the instant case, Safo argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to call Tenisha Safo (“Tenisha”) as a defense witness. According to Safo, 

Tenisha would have testified that “she was on the phone with her daughter, that they 

were concerned that * * * Sims would not get home safely, that Officer Thompson 

was rude to her about * * * Safo’s pregnancy, that the following day other officers 

apologized for Officer Thompson’s behavior, and lastly that he did not have a black 
eye.” Safo does not offer an affidavit or other sworn testimony attesting to what she 

opines Tenisha would have said had she been called as a witness. Our review of the 

record shows that Tenisha, who is Safo and Sims’s mother, spoke at Safo’s 

sentencing hearing and said these very things. However, statements made during 

the penalty phase of a trial, after the defendant’s guilt has been established, are not 

sworn testimony. See State v. Williams, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 185, 2014-

Ohio-1015 (“Appellant’s opportunity at sentencing to make a statement concerning 

his remorse or to raise mitigating factors relevant to sentencing decisions is not 

sworn testimony.”). 

Moreover, the information Safo maintains Tenisha would have 

provided had she been called to testify at trial would not have negated the testimony 

provided by Off. Thompson or the body-cam video. Tenisha was not physically 

present on the night in question, and much of her proposed testimony has no 

bearing on any of the elements of either offense of which Safo was convicted. Upon 

review, we find that Safo has failed to show that Tenisha’s presumptive testimony 

would have assisted her defense. Accordingly, Safo’s second assignment of error is 

overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 
convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case 

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR