State v. Cheatham, 2016 Ohio 5779

In April 2014 the Clermont County Common Pleas Court issued a civil protection order (CPO) prohibiting Rashon Cheatham from contacting Dayna Brooks, being within 500 feet of her, or entering her residence; the order ran through April 3, 2015.
Cheatham was served with a copy of the CPO in June 2014 while in jail and had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the same CPO.
In February 2015 Brooks returned home with companions; a fight occurred involving Cheatham and others, and Brooks’ friend called 9‑1‑1.
Deputies responded, searched the property (including with a K9), left but remained nearby, and twenty minutes later were alerted that Cheatham had returned; when deputies approached stealthily Cheatham fled and was apprehended.
A grand jury indicted Cheatham on two felony counts of violating the CPO (elevated felonies because of the prior misdemeanor). After a bench trial the court convicted on both counts, merged them for sentencing, and placed Cheatham on three years community control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight to prove Cheatham "recklessly" violated the CPO (R.C. 2919.27)	State: Cheatham knew of and read the CPO, was present at Brooks’ residence while it was in effect, and fled from deputies — supporting a reckless violation.	Cheatham: He mistakenly believed the CPO had expired after six months (Brooks told him) and thus lacked culpable mental state; he fled out of fear of arrest for the fight and probation violation.	The court affirmed: sufficient evidence and weight support a finding Cheatham acted recklessly and was guilty.
Whether there were two separate violations (two incidents) rather than a single continuous event	State: Deputies’ testimony and K9 search show Cheatham left/was not in garage on first visit and then returned later, supporting two violations.	Cheatham: He remained hidden in the detached garage during the first response and was not elsewhere, so evidence shows a single violation.	The court affirmed: credibility findings supported two separate violations.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)