State v. Mejia ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Mejia, 2023-Ohio-3846.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-23-13
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SIDNEY B. MEJIA, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 0146
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 23, 2023
APPEARANCES:
W. Joseph Edwards for Appellant
Martha Schultes for Appellee
Case No. 9-23-13
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sidney B. Mejia (“Mejia”), appeals his conviction
for aggravated possession of drugs following a jury trial in the Marion County
Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On March 9, 2022, Mejia was indicted for aggravated possession of
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony.1 Mejia
appeared for arraignment on April 4, 2022 and entered a plea of not guilty.2
{¶3} A jury trial was held in the trial court on January 19, 2023 wherein the
jury found Mejia guilty of the charge set forth in the indictment.3 On February 17,
2023, the trial court sentenced Mejia to a 12-month prison term to be run
consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving.
{¶4} Mejia timely appeals and raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Erred In Entering A Finding Of Guilty Because
The Verdic [Sic] Was Against The Manifest Weight Of The
Evidence Thereby Violating Appellant’s Rights Under The Ohio
And Federal Constitutions (Record Reference App. Pp. 5-9).
{¶5} In Mejia’s sole assignment of error, he argues that his conviction is
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
1
At the time Mejia was indicted in Marion County, he was an inmate in North Central Correctional Complex
(“NCCC”).
2
On June 1, 2022, Mejia was indicted in Marion County Common Pleas Court in case number 2022 CR 0324
(“0324”)) for aggravated possession of drugs (involving a different incident at NCCC), which the trial court
ordered be consolidated with the instant indictment for trial.
3
Ultimately, case number 0324 was dismissed with prejudice by the State in the midst of the trial.
-2-
Case No. 9-23-13
Standard of Review
{¶6} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of
the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘weigh[ ] the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses and
determine[ ] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly
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), superseded by statute on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d
89 (1997), and quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983).
But we must give due deference to the fact-finder, because
[t]he fact-finder * * * occupies a superior position in determining
credibility. The fact-finder can hear and see as well as observe the
body language, evaluate voice inflections, observe hand gestures,
perceive the interplay between the witness and the examiner, and
watch the witness’s reaction to exhibits and the like. Determining
credibility from a sterile transcript is a Herculean endeavor. A
reviewing court must, therefore, accord due deference to the
credibility determinations made by the fact-finder.
State v. Williams, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-20-54, 2021-Ohio-1359, ¶ 8, quoting State
v. Dailey, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-07-23, 2008-Ohio-274, ¶ 7, quoting State v.
Thompson, 127 Ohio App.3d 511, 529 (8th Dist.1998). A reviewing court must,
however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the
weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass, 10
Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly
-3-
Case No. 9-23-13
in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’
should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 3d
Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio
St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.
Analysis
{¶7} Mejia asserts in his manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge that
Corrections Officer Colton Heck (“C.O. Heck”) lacks credibility because he could
not recall certain details from the incident and/or had inconsistencies in his
testimony when compared to his incident report.
{¶8} “‘Although we review credibility when considering the manifest weight
of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is primarily a determination for the trier
of fact.’” State v. Chute, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-22-02, 2022-Ohio-2722, ¶ 30,
quoting State v. Banks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96535, 2011-Ohio-5671, ¶ 13, citing
DeHass at 230, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶9} Here, the record supports that the jury had the opportunity to observe
C.O. Heck testify at trial. It is clear to us from our review of the record that the jury
found C.O. Heck to be credible. Indeed, 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.”’” Chute
at ¶ 31 quoting Banks at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-
Ohio-2202, ¶ 24, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80
-4-
Case No. 9-23-13
(1984). Significantly, C.O. Heck testified that Mejia was in actual possession of
the contraband in question. His testimony was both unwavering and uncontroverted
on this point. Certainly, it is within the province of the jury to parse out the credible
portions of C.O. Heck’s testimony as it pertained to any perceived inconsistencies.
See State v. Wainwright, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 119 MA 0023, 2020-Ohio-623, ¶
37, citing State v. Mastel, 26 Ohio St.2d 170, 176-177 (1971).
{¶10} Upon the facts presented and after our review of the entire record, we
conclude that the evidence supporting Mejia’s conviction is of greater weight than
the evidence against it, and thus, we will not say that the evidence weighs heavily
against Mejia’s conviction. Therefore, we conclude that the jury did not clearly lose
its way and create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that Mejia’s conviction
must be reversed.
{¶11} Accordingly, Mejia’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} Having found no error prejudicial to Mejia in the particulars assigned
and argued, the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.
/hls
-5-