Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Martynowski

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

December 29, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
JOSEPH D. MARTYNOWSKI Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 16CR093108

          APPEARANCES: STEPHEN P. HANUDEL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and LINDSEY C. POPROCKI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Martynowski, appeals from his convictions in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Late one evening, Martynowski's live-in girlfriend drove herself to the emergency room where she received treatment for a concussion, bilateral nasal fractures, and multiple contusions. While receiving treatment, she told hospital personnel and the police that she had been assaulted by Martynowski. The police then arrested Martynowski, who was still at home. Upon arresting him, the police found blood on his clothes and swelling to his knuckles.

         {¶3} A grand jury indicted Martynowski on one count of felonious assault and one count of domestic violence. A bench trial ensued, following which the court found Martynowski guilty on both counts. The court then merged the counts as allied offenses of similar import and sentenced him to four years in prison on his felonious assault count.

          {¶4} Martynowski now appeals and raises three assignments of error for our review. For ease of analysis, we reorder his assignments of error.

         II.

         Assignment of Error II

         The trial court erred by not acquitting Appellant due to insufficient evidence of any offense occurring on the date alleged in the indictment.

         {¶5} In his second assignment of error, Martynowski argues that his convictions are based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.

         {¶6} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction presents a question of law. State v. Thompkins,78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Upon review, "the relevant inquiry is 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks,61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Although this Court conducts a sufficiency review de novo, "we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.