State v. Anderson

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 2023-Ohio-203.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 22CA000015
MYRON ANDERSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 21CR65
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 25, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
LINDSEY ANGLER MICHAEL GROH
Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney 1938 E. Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
JASON R. FARLEY
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
627 Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000015 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Myron Anderson appeals the judgment entered by the
Guernsey County Common Pleas Court convicting him of failure to comply with the order
or signal of a police officer, a felony of the third degree (R. C. 2921.331(B), (C)(5)(a)(ii)),
and sentencing him to 24 months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} At approximately 2:00 a.m. on February 20, 2021, Appellant was driving a
vehicle traveling north on Interstate 77 in Guernsey County. There was snow on the
ground, and the roadway was wet and/or icy in spots. Trooper Jonathan Sanborn was
sitting in a crossover with Trooper Jacobs, observing traffic. Trooper Jacobs observed
Appellant slow from 70 mph to 55 mph, and pulled out to follow Appellant. Trooper Jacobs
then radioed to other officers Appellant was fleeing.
{¶3} The chase proceeded into Tuscarawas County, where the highway was
icier than in Guernsey County. Appellant reached speeds exceeding 100 mph. At one
point, Appellant pulled into a crossover, then pulled back on to the Interstate heading
south, causing a semi tractor-trailer rig to take evasive action. Appellant passed other
cars along the way, made an aggressive movement to the berm of the road at one point,
and was observed weaving back and forth between lanes and weaving within his own
lane. One of the officers attempting to pass Appellant was nervous because of the
manner in which Appellant was weaving in his lane. Appellant was finally stopped by
spikes placed on the road by police in Guernsey County. The chase lasted fifteen to
twenty minutes.
{¶4} Appellant was charged with failure to comply with the order or signal of a
police officer as a third degree felony. The case proceeded to bench trial in the Guernsey
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000015 3
County Common Pleas Court. The trial court found Appellant guilty, and sentenced him
to 24 months incarceration. The trial court further suspended Appellant’s driver’s license
for 99 years.
{¶5} It is from the April 6, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes
his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND APPELLANT
GUILTY OF A FELONY VIOLATION OF FAILURE TO COMPLY.
II. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR FELONY FAILURE TO
COMPLY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
I., II.
{¶6} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,
weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,
and determines whether in resolving conflicts in 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678
N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).
{¶7} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000015 4
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492,
paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).
{¶8} Appellant was convicted of failure to comply as a third degree felony, which
is defined by R. C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii) as follows:
(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or
flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police
officer to bring the person's motor vehicle to a stop.
(5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third
degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt:
(ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a
substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.
{¶9} Appellant argues there was no evidence his operation of the vehicle caused
a substantial risk of serious harm to persons or property. He argues driving at a speed
of 100 mph on an interstate highway, without more, does not create a substantial risk of
serious harm to persons or property.
{¶10} The testimony of the officers involved in the chase demonstrated Appellant
not only traveled at speeds exceeding 100 mph when it was dark outside and the road
conditions were wet in spots and icy in other spots, he made a U-turn in a crossover,
pulling out in front of a semi tractor-trailer, causing the driver of the semi to take evasive
action. The officers observed Appellant weaving in and out of lanes, and weaving within
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000015 5
his own lane. Trooper Sanborn testified when he was attempting to pass Appellant,
Appellant’s swerving in his own lane made him nervous. Although traffic was light, there
were other cars on the road, and the chase consumed fifteen to twenty minutes. We find
there was sufficient evidence to support a finding Appellant’s operation of his vehicle
caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property, and the
judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶11} The judgment of the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur