STATE OF OHIO v. MIGUEL VALENTIN GALINDO
Case No. 2011CA00258
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 6, 2012
2012-Ohio-3626
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.; Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.; Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2011CR1204; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
For Appellant:
JACOB T. WILL
116 Cleveland Ave. NW
Suite 808
Canton, OH 44702
For Appellee:
JOHN D. FERRERO, JR.
STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR
KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
{1} Appellant Miguel Valentin Galindo appeals from his conviction upon one count of disrupting public services,1 a felony of the fourth degree. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{2} Appellant and Maria Rodriguez have known each other for about seven years and have two minor children together. Maria also has two minor children from another relаtionship, N.A. and A.A. Appellant does not live at Maria‘s apartment in North Canton, but stayed there occasionally and did have a key to her apartment, which hе would use to facilitate visits with his children. Maria required appellant to call first before he came over.
{3} This case arose on August 6, 2011, when appellant showed up at the apartment very early in the morning without advance notice. Maria testified appellant was intoxicated and wanted to sleep with her, and became enraged when she said no. She told him to leave.
{4} A confrontation ensued at the door of the apartment. Maria told appellant to lеave or she would call the police. They fought, pushing the door back and forth, and Maria‘s arm was struck and injured by the door. Appellant was forced out of the apartment and then came back in through the front window. The four minor children were in the living room and witnessed most of the incident.
{5} At trial, Maria and appellant testified with the aid of Spanish-language interpreters. Maria‘s son N.A. also testified about the events inside the apartment.
{6} Maria testified appellant took a phone away from her when she attempted to call police, so she asked her son A.A. to call. Appellant then took a phone away from A.A. Further, “He tоok the phone away from [A.A.], then he threw it on the couch. Then he took the phone, and he threw it outside.” (T. 106-107). Appellant left the house with Maria‘s phone, and Maria and A.A. “pick[ed] up the one that was broken. Then we went to the truck to get another phone and we put the chip to that one so we can call thе police.” (T. 107-108). Later during direct examination, appellee clarified the issue and asked Maria how the phone was broken; Maria responded, “When [appellant] threw it to the floor.” (T.110).
{7} N.A. witnessed the incident. N.A. testified appellant took a phone away from Maria and slapped a phone out of A.A.‘s hands, breaking it. Appellant also punched A.A. Per N.A., once appellant left the scene, Maria and A.A. went outside to the truck “to get a phone she bought that wаs supposed to be for us, but then she found my SIM card outside that he dropped, put it in the phone and called the police.” (T. 129).
{8} Appellant testified on his own behalf. He denied hurting Maria and A.A., but admitted taking the phone from Maria because he didn‘t want her to call police. He further admitted upon cross examination he took a phone from Maria and threw it down because he wanted to prevent her from calling 911.
{9} Eventually A.A. did make contact with 911 and police were dispatсhed for a call of an active domestic violence incident. Ptl. Harnack arrived at the
Indictment and Conviction
{10} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated burglary [
{11} At sentencing appellee noted the existence of an I.C.E. holder which may subject appellant to deportation. The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 14 months on the count of disrupting public services, concurrent with two terms of six months each on the domestic violence counts.
{12} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of conviction and sentence of one count of disrupting public services.
{13} Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:
{14} “I. THE APPELLANT‘S CONVICTION FOR ONE COUNT OF DISRUPTING PUBLIC SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF
I.
{15} In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that his conviction for one count of disrupting public services is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{16} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of disrupting public sеrvices pursuant to
{17} The statute is aimed at conduct which prevents a victim from using public services to seek emergency assistance. For example, where a defendant grabs the victim‘s phone and throws it into a toilet, and then removes the battery from a second phone, such conduct “falls squarely within the types of behaviors the statute was designed to punish: he interrupted telephone use for emergency communications.” State v. White, 2nd Dist. No. 21795, 2007-Ohio-5671, ¶ 15.
{18} Appellant asserts insufficient evidence was presented to establish the telephone he took away from A.A. was functional and further claims no evidence exists A.A. was attempting to use the phone when it was taken; he asserts his conviction is unsupported by the evidence because Maria was able to use аnother phone to eventually call police but no call was initiated before appellant left the scene.
{19} Appellant infers, however, a further requirement that appellee must establish the phone was functional before appellant destroyed it. We find no such requirement in the statute or the case law. Moreover, both Maria and N.A. testified appellant broke the phone they were attempting to use. “The statute prohibits purposeful or knowing damaging or tampering with property that interrupts or impairs telephone service.” State v. Thomas, 2nd Dist. No. 19435, 2003-Ohio-5746, ¶ 62.
{20} Ptl. Harnack testified the phone recovered from the sсene that night was broken. (T.146-147). Appellant himself admitted he took the phone from A.A., and took it with him, because Maria said she was going to call the police and hе wanted to prevent her from doing so. (T. 170-171). Appellant later claimed the phone he took was not “in service” yet admitted taking the phone, again, to prevent Maria from calling 911. (T. 172-173). In short, the State established appellant committed the conduct prohibited by
{21} We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the jury did not lose its way in resolving any conflicts in the evidеnce. Appellant‘s conviction for one count of disrupting public services is supported by evidence in the record.
{22} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Farmer, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
PAD:kgb
STATE OF OHIO v. MIGUEL VALENTIN GALINDO
Case No. 2011CA00258
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
2012-Ohio-3626
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our aсcompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER