State v. Delevie, 2019 Ohio 3563

On Oct. 5, 2018, eastbound I-70 traffic was reduced to one lane (center) due to a right-lane construction closure and a left-lane termination ahead; overhead orange signs warned "Left lane ends ¾ mile" and "Left lane ends merge right."
Raymond Delevie (appellant) was driving in the left lane as it was ending and attempted to move into the center lane occupied by Eric Stone’s tractor-trailer; Delevie’s passenger-side mirror struck the trailer.
Both drivers drove to a rest stop, contacted the Ohio State Highway Patrol; Trooper Sawyers investigated, photographed damage, and concluded Delevie failed to merge safely and disobeyed traffic control devices.
Delevie was charged with two minor misdemeanors: violating R.C. 4511.12 (traffic control devices) and R.C. 4511.39 (turn/ signaling and due care). He pleaded not guilty, presented no evidence at trial, and was convicted after a bench trial.
The municipal court fined Delevie on each count; he appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence/manifest weight, (2) the offenses are allied under R.C. 2941.25, and (3) manifest-weight challenge (redundant with sufficiency claim).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Delevie)	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence to convict under R.C. 4511.12 and 4511.39	Evidence (photos, trooper and truck driver testimony, signage) proved Delevie disobeyed traffic control devices and moved without due care/signal	Evidence was insufficient; witness testimony contradicted physical facts; dash-cam missing; reasonable doubt exists	Convictions supported; viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Manifest weight of the evidence	Credible, corroborated testimony and physical evidence supported verdict	Verdict was against the manifest weight; trial court allegedly erred in credibility findings	Not against manifest weight; appellate court defers to factfinder on credibility and resolves conflicts in evidence
3. Allied-offenses (R.C. 2941.25) — whether R.C. 4511.12 and R.C. 4511.39 merge	Two statutes address different harms/ duties (obeying control devices vs. moving without due care/signaling); distinct conduct and animus justify separate convictions	Offenses are allied and should merge; separate convictions improper	Offenses are of dissimilar import and committed separately; Delevie failed to raise below so must show plain error and did not meet burden—no merger required

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
McDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 42 Ohio St.2d 8 (Ohio 1975) (physical-facts rule described)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (forfeiture of allied-offense claims not raised at trial; plain-error standard)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (framework for analyzing allied offenses)
State v. Richardson, 94 Ohio App.3d 501 (Ohio Ct. App.) (failure to signal or exercise due care can independently support a violation of R.C. 4511.39)