State v. Henry
2011 Ohio 3566
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Michael Henry was indicted in Summit County for domestic violence, endangering children, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest; he waived a jury trial and was found guilty on domestic violence, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest, receiving a three-year prison sentence.
- The incidents began with Henry attempting to visit his 18‑month‑old daughter outside Moore’s home, where a struggle over custody occurred and Henry allegedly punched Moore and fled.
- Moore testified that Henry and her relatives wrestled for the child for five to six minutes, during which Henry punched her and fled; Henry disputed the extent of the injuries and whether scratches were caused.
- During trial, the court credited Moore’s testimony and observed red marks on her face; Henry argues the witnesses were not credible and that the scratches could have come from others or the environment.
- Henry challenges two allied-offenses theories and argues the domestic violence conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence; the State contends the allied-offense issue is moot once the sentence was served and, under Pedraza, cannot be reviewed.
- The court affirmed; the domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the allied-offenses issue was deemed moot because the sentence had been completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic violence weight of the evidence | Henry | Henry claims Moore’s testimony was not credible | Not contrary to manifest weight; credibility proper to trial court |
| Allied offenses—merger of obstructing and resisting | Henry | Convictions should have merged | Moot; Pedraza applies; appeal abandoned after sentence completion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (manifest weight standard for reviewing a conviction)
- State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975) (mootness when sentence completed absent collateral consequences)
- City of Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 2011-Ohio-2673 (Ohio) (standing to appeal despite completed sentence in misdemeanor case; stay of execution considerations)
- State v. Pedraza, 2010-Ohio-4284 (Ohio) (mootness doctrine; needs stay to avoid mootness when appealing after sentence completion)
- State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1 (Ohio) (prejudice concerns regarding multiple convictions; plain-error context referenced)
- In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23 (2007) (discusses mootness and collateral consequences)