State v. Himes, 2023 Ohio 3561

Himes was charged with domestic violence after an October 16, 2022 altercation with her live-in boyfriend, Cameron O’Brien; both had prior domestic-violence probation. O’Brien recorded part of the incident on his cellphone.
On February 16, 2023 Himes pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge (criminal damaging) and offered mitigation; during mitigation she expressed fear of testifying and suggested there was more to the story.
The trial court, concerned about the plea’s voluntariness on the record, declined to accept the plea under Crim.R. 11(E) and proceeded to a bench trial. The state presented O’Brien and a police officer; Himes testified and the video was admitted.
The video and testimony showed Himes dragging O’Brien by the hair, hitting him, and choking him; O’Brien testified he did not touch Himes in the recorded portion and continued to text/call afterward.
The trial court found Himes guilty of domestic violence, imposed a suspended 180-day jail term and five years of community control. Himes appealed, raising (1) that the court improperly refused her guilty plea and (2) that her conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because she acted in self-defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Himes)	Held
Whether the trial court could refuse/withdraw acceptance of Himes's guilty plea after she pled but before sentencing entry was journalized	The trial court had discretion under Crim.R. 11(E) to refuse a plea in a petty-offense misdemeanor and therefore could decline to accept the plea	The court abused its discretion by rescinding/ refusing the guilty plea after Himes admitted facts and mitigation began	Held: Court did not err — Crim.R. 11(E) permits refusing a plea for petty offenses and no final conviction existed until a sentencing entry was journalized (court retained jurisdiction)
Whether Himes’s domestic-violence conviction was against the manifest weight because she acted in self-defense	The state proved Himes knowingly caused physical harm and disproved self-defense; video and testimony showed Himes initiated/ escalated the physical conduct	Himes contends O’Brien punched her first, she reasonably feared imminent harm, and her actions were defensive	Held: Conviction not against the manifest weight — trier of fact credited the state’s version; Himes created the situation and knowingly caused harm

State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (finality of conviction requires a journalized sentencing entry)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review and rarity of reversal)
State v. Gillespie, 172 Ohio App.3d 304 (first-element of self-defense is broader than simply not being the immediate aggressor)