[Cite as Cleveland v. 

Jones-McFarlane, 2024-Ohio-1886.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF CLEVELAND, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113433

v. :

TOMIKA JONES-MCFARLANE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND VACATED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 16, 2024

Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court

Case No. 2022-CRB-005035

Appearances:

Mark Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, Aqueelah 

Jordan, Chief Prosecutor and Kevin Burns, Assistant 

Prosecutor, for appellee.

The Law Office of Schlachet and Levy and Eric M. Levy, 

for appellant. 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

Appellant, Tomika Jones McFarlane (“McFarlane”), has appealed her 

conviction on a charge of domestic violence following a bench trial in the Cleveland 

Municipal Court. 
In her appeal, McFarlane raises four assignments of error:

Assignment of Error I: Appellant was denied her rights under the Ohio 

and United States Constitutions to confront and cross-examine

witnesses against her where the case proceeded forward through trial 

and relied upon a body camera video which did not depict the entire 

incident and which was not properly authenticated absent testimony 

from the alleged victim and absent testimony from any police officer or 

party who personally witnessed the alleged events.

Assignment of Error II: Appellant was erroniously [sic] convicted of 

domestic violence absent sufficient evidence to support each element 

of the offense.

Assignment of Error III: Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence 

was entered against the manifest weight of the evidence presented 

against her. 

Assignment of Error IV: Appellant was denied her right to a speedy 

trial. 

Appellee, the city of Cleveland, conceded the error as set forth in 

McFarlane’s second assignment of error: on the grounds of sufficiency of the 

evidence.

Upon review, and in light of the city’s concession, all other assignments 

of error are rendered moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 

Judgment reversed and conviction is vacated. 

It is ordered that appellee bear the costs of this action.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

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

Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCURS;

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURRING:

I fully concur with the majority opinion. When a party concedes an 

error that is dispositive of the entire appeal, this court conducts its own review of the 

record to determine whether error occurred. See, e.g., State v. Forbes, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 111245, 2022-Ohio-2871, ¶ 2; Cleveland v. Patterson, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 109274, 2020-Ohio-1628, ¶ 6; see also Loc.App.R. 16(B). I agree that 

upon review, the conceded error is substantiated by the record. In light of the 

sufficiency challenge presented, I offer some additional analysis.

Appellant challenges her conviction for domestic violence in violation 

of R.C. 2919.25(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause physical 

harm to a family or household member.” Appellant argues, and the city concedes, 

that there was insufficient evidence to show the alleged victim is a “family or 

household member,” which is an essential element for the offense. Relevant hereto, 

R.C. 2919.25(F) defines a “Family or household member” as follows:
(a) Any of the following who is residing or has resided with the 

offender:

* * * 

(ii) * * * another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the 

offender; * * *.

In this case, the charge of domestic violence stemmed from an incident 

between the appellant and her sister, and the incident occurred at their father’s 

home. After a careful review of the record, including the transcript, it appears that 

although there was some testimony to show that the appellant is related to the 

alleged victim by consanguinity, there is no evidence to show that the alleged victim 

“is residing or has resided with the offender.” Because there is insufficient evidence 

to prove this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the second 

assignment of error should be sustained.

Accordingly, I concur with the majority decision to reverse the 

judgment and vacate appellant’s conviction, thereby rendering the remaining 

assignments of error moot.