Court Opinion

ID: 9380929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 17:06:30.420071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.489315
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hoyle, 2023-Ohio-899.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :               No. 22AP-19
                                                              (C.P.C. No. 19CR-5712)
v.                                                 :
                                                           (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Michael R. Hoyle, II,                              :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                           D E C I S I O N

                                      Rendered on March 21, 2023

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L.
                 Gilbert for appellee.

                 On brief: Lisa M. Tome for appellant.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

BEATTY BLUNT, P.J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Michael R. Hoyle, II (“Hoyle II” or “appellant”),
appeals from a December 13, 2021 judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of
one count of cruelty to a companion animal, a fifth-degree felony, with a three-year firearms
specification, and a trial court verdict finding him guilty of one count of having weapons
under disability (“WUD”), a third-degree felony. (Dec. 13, 2021 Jgmt. Entry.) For the
reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural History

        {¶ 2} On November 4, 2019, appellant was indicted on one count of cruelty to a
companion animal, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A) with a three-year
firearms specification, and one count of having WUD, a third-degree felony in violation of
                                                                                        2
No. 22AP-19
R.C. 2923.13. Appellant’s father, Michael Hoyle, Sr. (“Hoyle”), was indicted as a co-
defendant on two counts of felonious assault, both second-degree felonies. The indictments
arose out of an incident which occurred on October 3, 2019 when Leo-Ali Peoples and his
son Maalik-Ali Peoples were hit with a motor vehicle and Leo’s dog was shot outside of
Plugs Barbershop, located near the intersection of Chatterton Road and Noe-Bixby Road in
Franklin County, Ohio.
       {¶ 3} Appellant and Hoyle were tried together, with appellant waiving jury on the
WUD count. On August 16, 2021, trial commenced. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury
found appellant and Hoyle guilty of the counts brought against each of them and the trial
court found appellant guilty of the WUD count. We take notice that this court previously
affirmed the convictions of Hoyle in State v. Hoyle, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-610, 2022-Ohio-
3065. We reiterate the evidence adduced at trial as set forth in Hoyle and incorporate it
herein as follows:
              Leo testified he was married to Clarissa Peoples until 2016, and
              he and Clarissa have four children. Maalik is Leo and Clarissa’s
              oldest son, Hoyle is Clarissa’s brother, and Hoyle II is Hoyle’s
              son. Additionally, Leo is the owner of Plugs Barbershop on East
              Chatterton Road, and he has a dog who stays at the barbershop.

              Pursuant to Leo’s testimony, on October 3, 2019 he was
              working at the barbershop when Hoyle and Hoyle II appeared
              in the parking lot of a Speedway gas station outside the
              barbershop along with several other men, some of whom were
              holding guns. Leo said Hoyle got out of his vehicle and walked
              to the barbershop parking lot, yelling “[m]e and you.” (Tr. Vol.
              2 at 273.) At that point, Leo said that Maalik went outside with
              some customers to try to stop the altercation. When the dog
              went outside, Leo said someone sprayed the dog with mace. He
              said the dog then chased Hoyle causing Hoyle to go back to his
              vehicle, a gray-silver Dodge Dakota pickup truck. Once Hoyle
              was back in his vehicle, Leo said Hoyle drove straight at him,
              coming over the parking lot barrier at a high rate of speed, and
              hit Leo twice with the truck. First, Leo said Hoyle hit his left
              arm and left side of his body. Leo said Hoyle then put the truck
              in reverse and then drove forward once more, hitting Leo in the
              ankle with enough force to break Leo’s leg brace. Further, Leo
              said the second hit from the vehicle also caused a burn-like
              injury to his leg, causing his flesh to peel off and his leg to bleed.

              Leo testified that when Maalik saw him on the ground after
              being hit the first time, Maalik ran over to him to help him. Leo
                                                                                   3
No. 22AP-19
              said that Hoyle then drove the truck at Maalik and either hit or
              almost hit him. After he was able to get up off the ground, Leo
              said he then saw Hoyle II walk toward him with a gun. Leo
              testified that Hoyle II walked directly to the dog and shot her
              three times. Once the gun was fired, Leo said everyone
              scattered and that Hoyle II jumped in the truck with Hoyle and
              the two drove off. Maalik picked up the dog and drove her to a
              veterinarian, and the police arrived a short time later. Leo said
              he went to an urgent care after being hit by the car where he
              was given Ibuprofen 800 for the pain. Additionally, Leo said he
              had to buy a new leg brace.

              Leo testified he and Hoyle had been in a past altercation
              leading to Leo being charged with and convicted of aggravated
              menacing. Because of his history with Hoyle, Leo said he got
              his phone out on October 3, 2019 to record the incident. The
              state played several video clips for the jury, and Leo described
              the scenes as he remembered them. The first clip showed a
              small crowd of people outside the barbershop, including Hoyle.
              The second clip showed the Dodge Dakota truck and showed
              Hoyle II before the camera begins to point at either the sky or
              ground. Leo testified that after he was hit with the truck, he
              dropped the phone that was recording and that someone else
              picked it up and took it into the barbershop where the phone
              continued to record audio despite an obstructed video view.
              Leo described another video clip as containing audio of the
              three gunshots, the dog screaming, and tires screeching.

              Maalik, who was 22 years old at the time of trial, also testified.
              On October 3, 2019, Maalik said he went to his maternal
              grandfather’s home to use the bathroom and say hello to his
              mother and grandfather. When he exited the bathroom, Maalik
              said Hoyle began yelling at him and getting in his face. Maalik
              testified he left his grandfather’s house at that time and took
              his younger brother with him, and then he returned to the
              barbershop where he had been doing apprentice work for his
              father.

              Describing the afternoon of October 3, 2019, Maalik said he did
              not notice Hoyle and Hoyle II until they started coming over
              closer to the barbershop. Maalik testified he was outside with
              his cousins and with the dog when he saw Hoyle across the
              street. Among the cars gathered across the street, Maalik said
              he also saw his maternal grandfather’s truck and his maternal
              aunt’s vehicle, and he testified that it appeared the cars were
              loaded with people.
                                                                                   4
No. 22AP-19
              Maalik testified that Hoyle instigated the altercation and that
              eight or nine people then showed up, some of whom had guns
              with them, outside the barbershop. Maalik described Hoyle’s
              vehicle as a silver Dodge Ram pickup truck. As the people,
              including Hoyle II, crossed the street and came toward the
              barbershop parking lot, Maalik said they were arguing and
              yelling. Maalik testified that the dog then ran up to protect him
              and someone sprayed her with mace. Next, Maalik said the
              silver truck pulled into the barbershop parking lot at a high rate
              of speed, hit his father in the leg and knee the first time, and
              then ran over his father’s foot with the brace on it the second
              time. Maalik testified that Hoyle was driving the truck. When
              Maalik ran over to help his father, Maalik said Hoyle then
              reversed the truck and hit Maalik with it as well. Maalik
              testified that although the truck hit him and caused him pain,
              he did not require any medical attention. Further, Maalik said
              his father was on the driver’s side of the truck when it hit his
              father and that the vehicle’s mirror broke when the truck hit his
              father. According to Maalik’s testimony, after the truck hit
              them the second time, the men got out of the truck with their
              guns and tried to start a fight.

              At that point, Maalik said Hoyle II walked across the street, put
              on a hooded sweatshirt, and walked up with a gun to Maalik,
              Leo, and the dog. Maalik testified that Hoyle II pointed the gun
              at him and his father before shooting the dog three or four
              times. Maalik said Hoyle II dropped the gun but then picked it
              up and ran off. After the gunshots, Maalik said he rushed the
              dog to the veterinarian.

              Rodney Howell, a deputy with the Franklin County Sheriff’s
              Department, also testified. Deputy Howell testified he
              responded to the barbershop on October 3, 2019 after reports
              of a shooting. Based on the casings and projectiles located at
              the scene, Deputy Howell said the incident involved a semi-
              automatic weapon. Deputy Howell stated there were
              individuals at the scene who refused medical help and,
              therefore, no medics were called to the scene.

              Jeffrey Watkins, a witness who observed the incident, testified
              he saw someone pull out a pistol and then heard three
              gunshots. After the gun shots, Watkins said he saw two people
              run to a silver Dodge pickup truck and flee the scene. Watkins
              testified he followed the silver Dodge pickup truck in his own
              vehicle, called 911, and provided police with a location of the
              vehicle. Watkins followed the vehicle to James Road until
              police intervened.
                                                                                            5
No. 22AP-19
Hoyle at ¶ 3-12.

       {¶ 4} In addition to Deputy Howell’s testimony as set forth above, he also testified
that while at the crime scene, he verified that the dog had been shot. In addition to Jeffrey
Watkins’ testimony as set forth above, he also testified that at the time he observed the
incident, he observed a dog running around and staying close to its owner. After he heard
the three gunshots as set forth above, he heard the dog yelp and saw a person go down and
then pick up the dog. Watkins further testified that he did not see the dog acting
aggressively or lunging at anyone.
       {¶ 5} On August 20, 2021, the jury found appellant guilty of cruelty to a companion
animal and the trial court found appellant guilty of having WUD. On December 13, 2021,
the trial court issued a judgment entry which reflected the verdict of the jury and the court
and imposed an aggregate prison sentence of four years, three of which are mandatory for
the firearms specification. (Jgmt. Entry.)
       {¶ 6} This timely appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error

       {¶ 7} Appellant asserts the following as his sole assignment of error for our review:

              APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE
              MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF
              HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY FIFTH
              AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
              STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE PROVISIONS
              OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

III. Discussion

       {¶ 8} Appellant asserts in his sole assignment of error that his convictions were
against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
       {¶ 9} “[T]he criminal manifest weight of the evidence standard addresses the
evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” State v. Cassell, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1093, 2010-Ohio-
1881, ¶ 38, citing State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25, citing State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). “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 a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of
the conflicting testimony.” Thompkins at 387, citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42
                                                                                              6
No. 22AP-19
(1982). “ ‘The court, 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 reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” Id. at
387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). This discretionary
authority “ ‘should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.’ ” Id., quoting Martin at 175.
       {¶ 10} Furthermore, “ ‘[w]hile the jury may take note of inconsistencies and resolve
or discount them accordingly, * * * such inconsistences do not render defendant’s
conviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.’ ” State v. Gullick,
10th Dist. No. 13AP-317, 2014-Ohio-1642, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Nivens, 10th Dist. No.
95APA09-1236, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 2245, *7 (May 28, 1996). “A jury, as the finder of
fact and the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses,
may believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony.” Id. at ¶ 10 citing State
v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67 (1964). A conviction is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence simply because the jury believed the state’s version of events over the appellant’s
version. Gullick at ¶ 11, citing State v. Houston, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-875, 2005-Ohio-4249,
¶ 38 (reversed and remanded in part on other grounds). Rather, a reviewing court must
give great deference to the jury’s determination of witness credibility. Id., citing State v.
Chandler, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-415, 2006-Ohio-2070, ¶ 9. This is so because the jury “ ‘ “is
best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections,
and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” ’ ” State
v. Huber, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-668, 2019-Ohio-1862, ¶ 32, quoting State v. Cattledge, 10th
Dist. No. 10AP-105, 2010-Ohio-4953, ¶ 6, quoting Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio
St.3d 77, 80 (1984).
       {¶ 11} In this case, appellant asserts, in essence, that his convictions are against the
manifest weight of the evidence because the testimony of Leo and Maalik conflicted with
each other’s version of the events at issue. Yet the record shows that the testimony of Leo
and Maalik was consistent with regard to the details crucial to the elements of the crimes
for which appellant was convicted. Specifically, both Leo and Maalik testified that appellant
shot Leo’s dog at least three times, and identified appellant as the person who shot Leo’s
                                                                                                        7
No. 22AP-19
dog. While Maalik testified that appellant shot the dog three or four times, and Leo testified
that appellant shot the doge three times, this slight divergence in the details has no effect
on the overall consistency of the two witnesses’ testimony on this point. As we previously
found in affirming the convictions of appellant’s co-defendant in Hoyle, the inconsistencies
between the testimony of Leo and Maalik pointed out by appellant “largely related to
ancillary matters and did not, when viewed in context, undermine the credibility as a whole
of either Leo’s or Maalik’s testimony.” Hoyle at ¶ 20.1
        {¶ 12} As for appellant’s conviction for having WUD, we observe that none of
appellant’s arguments actually contest the evidence showing that appellant possessed a gun
while under disability. Furthermore, our review of the evidence and the record shows that
the trial court sitting as the factfinder on this issue could have readily concluded that
appellant was guilty of the WUD violation.
        {¶ 13} Therefore, having reviewed the record in its entirety, and in light of the
evidence discussed above, we do not find the jury clearly lost its way in finding appellant
guilty of cruelty to a companion animal in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A), and merely because
it chose to find the state’s witnesses credible does not mean appellant’s conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Likewise, the trial court did not clearly lose its
way in finding appellant guilty of having WUD in violation of R.C. 2923.13, and this
conviction is likewise not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
        {¶ 14} Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, we overrule appellant’s sole
assignment of error.
IV. Disposition

        {¶ 15} Based on all of the foregoing, appellant’s sole assignment of error is
overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                 Judgment affirmed.

                      LUPER SCHUSTER and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.

1 We further note that the testimony of Deputy Howell and Jeffrey Watkins would have readily permitted the
finder of fact to conclude that the dog had been shot.