State v. Vancleef, 11 N.E.3d 796

Quentin Vancleef was indicted for a felony (third-degree) domestic violence offense under R.C. 2919.25, based on prior convictions that allegedly enhanced the charge.
The indictment alleged prior convictions included domestic violence and a third-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief (R.C. 2909.07) involving a family/household member.
Vancleef moved to dismiss, arguing the misdemeanor criminal mischief could not serve as an enhancing offense because it does not involve risk of physical harm and thus has no "victim" under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3).
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment, concluding a third-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief conviction cannot enhance domestic violence.
The State appealed, arguing R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) plainly includes convictions under R.C. 2909.07 regardless of degree, and that property owners are "victims" for enhancement purposes.
The appellate court reversed, holding the misdemeanor criminal mischief conviction qualifies to enhance domestic violence and that such misdemeanor victims count as "victims" under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3); the second assignment of error was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior conviction for criminal mischief (R.C. 2909.07), regardless of degree, may enhance a domestic violence charge under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3).	The statute's plain language includes all convictions under R.C. 2909.07 as qualifying enhancing offenses.	A third-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief is not "substantially equivalent" to domestic violence and thus cannot enhance under R.C. 2901.04(C).	Reversed: R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) unambiguously includes prior convictions under R.C. 2909.07; R.C. 2901.04(C) inapplicable here.
Whether victims of third-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief qualify as "victims" for enhancement under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3).	Property owners harmed by criminal mischief are "victims" and satisfy the statute when they are family/household members.	Third-degree criminal mischief does not involve risk of physical harm, so it lacks a "victim" for domestic-violence enhancement purposes.	Reversed: Courts treat property owners harmed by criminal mischief as "victims"; such victims qualify under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3).

Bartchy v. State Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205 (2008) (statutory language is interpreted according to ordinary meaning; unambiguous statutes are applied, not construed)
Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944) (where statute language is plain, courts should not resort to statutory construction)