[Cite as State v. Becks, 2015-Ohio-4431.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2015-L-011
- vs - :
DARTAVIA S. BECKS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Painesville Municipal Court, Case No. 14 CRA 02222.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Ron M. Graham, 6988 Spinach Drive, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michelle M. French, Law Offices of Michelle M. French, LLC, P.O. Box 293, Jefferson,
OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Dartavia S. Becks, appeals the judgment of the Painesville
Municipal Court convicting him on one count of misdemeanor assault after a bench trial.
At issue is whether appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the
evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} Appellant was charged with assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in
violation of R.C. 2903.13. Appellant plead not guilty, and a bench trial ensued. The trial
court heard two versions of what transpired over the course of a weekend in October
2014.
{¶3} The weekend began with Becks and his then-girlfriend K.M., the victim,
deciding to spend a few nights at a hotel. K.M. testified that, prior to leaving for the
hotel, Becks had purchased marijuana for her, which she had placed in her purse. After
arriving at the hotel, they decided to leave. K.M. left her purse in the hotel room. Later,
they were contacted by the hotel and were instructed to return as Becks’ credit card had
been declined. Furthermore, K.M. testified that the hotel staff complained the smell of
marijuana was emanating from their room. According to K.M., upon returning to the
hotel, Becks became belligerent with the hotel desk staff, and consequently, Mentor
Police were called. Upset over the situation, K.M. left the hotel and waited outside while
Becks remained in the hotel. A few minutes later, Becks returned to their vehicle with
all of the belongings from the room, including K.M.’s purse containing the marijuana.
Becks yelled that “he took responsibility for whatever was in that room.”
{¶4} En route to Becks’ residence, K.M. testified that while she was driving,
Becks began to hit her in her right arm and face. K.M. testified that Becks hit her over
twenty times while driving. Becks also kicked her leg. Becks ceased this behavior
when they arrived at Becks’ home, where he resided with his mother and step-father.
{¶5} Eventually, K.M. exited the vehicle only to be confronted by Becks in the
yard, holding a pair of scissors. K.M. defended herself and, after a brief scuffle, was
told by Becks to get in the house. K.M. complied and stayed with him for two days.
She made no mention of Becks hitting her to Becks’ mother, step-father, or his sister,
who was visiting at the time. K.M. noted that she wore long-sleeved shirts to hide her
2
bruises. Becks had taken her phone, but she was, however, able to make a quick call
to her brother, who persuaded her to leave. K.M. testified that she had suffered several
bruises on her right arm and leg as a result of Becks hitting her, but she did not report
the incident to the police until three days later.
{¶6} Officer Russell Tuttle of the Painesville Police Department testified that he
spoke with K.M. and stated that K.M.’s injuries were consistent with her allegations;
K.M. had bruising on her right arm and leg, which were photographed and admitted into
evidence.
{¶7} The judge also heard from Becks. Becks testified they returned to the
hotel because there was a request to pay an additional $100 deposit due to the smell of
marijuana emanating from their room. Becks stated that he refused to pay the
additional charge and told the hotel to call the police. When told by the police that they
either had to pay the deposit or leave, he gathered their belongings and left.
{¶8} Becks testified he never hit K.M., either on their way back to his parents’
house or at any time during their relationship. He acknowledged that K.M. had been
upset prior to and after this incident, but it was because she had lost custody of her
children. Becks and K.M. spoke about it over the weekend, and K.M. ultimately decided
to leave Becks’ residence and reunite with her children. Becks testified that he
respected her decision and he considered their break-up amicable. Becks spoke with
K.M. briefly on Sunday and was completely “flabbergasted” when the police arrived at
his home a few days later.
{¶9} Becks’ mother, stepfather, and sister also testified. Each stated they did
not observe any bruising on K.M., even when she was wearing short-sleeved shirts and
3
shorts. Becks’ mother further testified that K.M. was distraught and she spoke to K.M.
regarding her situation with her children.
{¶10} Following a bench trial, appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 90
days in jail. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and asserts one assignment of
error:
{¶11} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Appellant by convicting him of
misdemeanor assault contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
{¶12} “‘[A] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the
evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is
more believable or persuasive.’” State v. Hudson, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011 CA 100,
2013-Ohio-2351, ¶40, quoting State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-
Ohio-525, ¶12. To determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, a reviewing court must consider the weight of the evidence, including the
credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences, to determine whether the trier
of fact “lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 387 (1997). In weighing the evidence submitted at a criminal trial, an
appellate court must defer to the factual findings of the trier of fact regarding the weight
to be given the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio
St.2d 230, 231 (1967).
{¶13} Becks argues the police failed to investigate K.M.’s claims of the alleged
assault. Becks questions the veracity of K.M. because she claimed to have been
pregnant at the time of the assault but refused to take a pregnancy test. As a result of
4
her inability to prove her pregnancy, the charge was reduced from a felony to a
misdemeanor.
{¶14} Conversely, he argues his testimony, which was consistent with that of his
mother, stepfather, and sister, supports the conclusion that K.M was not assaulted.
Contrary to the testimony of Officer Tuttle, he claims no one observed any injuries to
K.M.’s arms or legs, nor did K.M. say anything about the situation during her weekend
stay at Becks’ residence. Further, Becks argues that K.M.’s behavior following the
alleged assault was not consistent with that of someone who had been assaulted.
{¶15} Reviewing the evidence admitted in this case, we cannot conclude the
trier of fact lost its way in concluding appellant committed assault. While there is
competing testimony, “[i]t is well-settled that when assessing the credibility of witnesses,
‘[t]he choice between credible witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely with
the finder of fact and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of
the finder of fact.’” State v. Grayson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2006-L-153, 2007-Ohio-1772,
¶31, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123 (1986). “Indeed, the factfinder is
free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness appearing before it.”
Id., citing Warren v. Simpson, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1073, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 98-
T-0183, *8 (Mar.17, 2000). “If the evidence is susceptible to more than one
interpretation, a reviewing court must interpret it in a manner consistent with the
verdict.” Id., (citation omitted).
{¶16} The trier of fact was free to believe K.M.’s version of the events and the
testimony of Officer Tuttle regarding the bruising on K.M.’s right leg and right arm. This
bruising was depicted on the photographs taken at the police station and admitted into
5
evidence. Nothing in the record indicates the fact finder lost its way in finding appellant
guilty of violating R.C. 2903.13. The record contained evidence from which the trial
court could have found that Becks did knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical
harm to K.M. Accordingly, the finding of guilt was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
{¶17} Becks’ sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Painesville Municipal Court
is hereby affirmed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
concur.
6