from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 2018
M. Brown for Appellant
E. Emerick for Appellee
Defendant-appellant, Kent D. Williams ("Williams"),
appeals the May 6, 2019 judgment entry of sentence of the
Allen County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow,
This case stems from a June 17, 2017 altercation between
Williams and Lindsey McCoy ("McCoy"), nka Lindsey
Kramer, and Tyler Dunlap ("Dunlap") of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that occurred
while Williams was an inmate at Allen-Oakwood Correctional
Institution ("ACI"). As a result of the
altercation, Williams was indicted on two counts of assault
in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), (C)(3), third-degree
felonies. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 23, 2018, Williams
appeared for arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty.
(Doc. No. 8).
After a bench trial on May 6, 2019, the trial court found
Williams guilty of both counts in the indictment. (Doc. Nos.
82, 155); (May 6, 2019 Tr. at 64-65). On June 17, 2019, the
trial court sentenced Williams to 9 months in prison on each
count, respectively, and ordered the terms to be served
consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 18 months in
prison. (Doc. No. 162). The trial court also ordered the
prison terms to be served consecutive to a prison term
imposed in another case. (Id.).
Williams filed his notice of appeal on June 21, 2019. (Doc.
No. 165). He raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court's Guilty Verdict As To Each Count
Of Assault Was Not Supported By Sufficient Evidence And Was
Against The Manifest Weight Of The Evidence.
In his assignment of error, Williams argues that his assault
convictions are based on insufficient evidence and that his
convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In particular, Williams argues that the trial court lost its
way in evaluating the evidence to conclude that he acted in
Manifest "weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the
evidence are clearly different legal concepts."
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389 (1997).
Thus, we address each legal concept individually.
"An appellate court's function when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction
is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the
average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259
(1981), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by
state constitutional amendment on other grounds,
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).
Accordingly, "[t]he 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." Id. "In deciding if the evidence
was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor
assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions
reserved for the trier of fact." State v.
Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571,
2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams,197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, ¶ ...