STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRANDON PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NOS. C-200327 C-200238 TRIAL NO. C-20TRC-18
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
July 9, 2021
[Cite as State v. Padgett, 2021-Ohio-2905.]
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Rittgers & Rittgers and C. Stephen Kilburn, for Defendant-Appellant.
O P I N I O N.
{¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Brandon Padgett was convicted of one count of operating a vehicle without reasonable control under
{¶2} The record shows that at approximately 3:00 a.m. on December 28, 2019, Officer Nick Price of the Hamilton County Sheriff‘s Office was dispatched to the scene of an automobile accident in the area of 9585 Union Cemetery Road. When he arrived, police officers from the city of Loveland were already on the scene. They directed Officer Price to a car that was off the roadway.
{¶3} Officer Price walked to the side of the road and saw a navy blue Dodge Challenger or Charger overturned in a wooded area. The car had also rotated after hitting a tree so that the front of the car faced the road. The officer could see brake marks on the road indicating that the car had crossed the yellow line and went off the road, and downed trees showing the path the car took before it hit the tree.
{¶4} Officer Price then walked into the wooded area to inspect the overturned car. The driver‘s side airbag had deployed from the steering wheel. There was a pool of blood on the roof over the driver‘s seat. There was also a bloody indentation on the deployed air bag.
{¶5} Padgett was standing by a Loveland police officer‘s car. He was nоt leaning or swaying. Padgett did not respond to Officer Price‘s questions, and he refused to take field sobriety tests. Officer Price stated that Padgett “smelled of the odor of an alcoholic beverage. It was almost like it was coming out of his pores.” Padgett‘s eyes were watery and bloodshot. He had what appeared to be a fresh
{¶6} The other officers at the scene located two other individuals who had been in the car. They had cuts on their hands that were bleeding. When they gave their statements to the police, there was blood on the paper. Nevertheless, Officer Price stated that other officers had advised him that “they didn‘t appear to have any type of injuries that would match to what Mr. Padgett had.”
{¶7} At the time of the accident, Officer Price was a 12-year veteran. Based on his observations, his training, and his experience, he concluded that Padgett was driving the car and that he was impaired. He arrested Padgett for OVI.
{¶8} Padgett was transported to the hospital. Officer Priсe determined that Padgett had a class A driver‘s license and read to him from an administrative-license suspension form, advising him that his license was being suspended. The officer also read him his Miranda rights and asked him to take a blood test, but Padgett did not say anything.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Padgett contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He argues that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle or that he was impaired. This assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶10} The relevant inquiry when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offenses proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Hackney, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150375, 2016-Ohio-4609, ¶ 29. In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Cephas, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180105, 2019-Ohio-52, ¶ 37.
{¶11} Padgett was convicted of violating former
{¶12} Padgett contends that the state failed to prove that he operated the vehicle. Former
{¶13} Padgett also contends that the state failed to demonstrate that he was imрaired. To prove that he was under the influence of alcohol, the state was not required to prove that he had a particular level of alcohol concentration in his body. State v. Hamilton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200041, 2021-Ohio-1421, ¶ 30; Panzeca at ¶ 15. Rather, the state was required to prove that he had consumed alcohol in a quantity that had “adversely and appreciably impaired [his] actions or mental
{¶14} Field sobriety tests are not required to obtain an OVI conviction. To prove impairment, the state may rely upon “physiological factors such as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol.” Panzeca at ¶ 16, quoting Cleveland v. Giering, 2017-Ohio-8059, 98 N.E.2d 1131, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.).
{¶15} The totality of the circumstancеs shows that Padgett was driving the vehicle and that he was impaired. Those circumstances include: (1) the severity of the accident; (2) Padgett‘s injuries; (3) an odor of alcohol “coming out of his pоres“; (4) watery bloodshot eyes; and (5) his refusal to take field sobriety tests or a blood test. See Hamilton at ¶ 31; Panzeca, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190474 and C-140475, 2020-Ohio-4448, at ¶ 13-18; State v. Carnes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140188, 2015-Ohio-379, ¶ 11-14; State v. Colyer, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120347, C-120348 and C-120349, 2013-Ohio-1316, ¶ 7-12.
{¶16} This case involved a severe accident, not a fender-bender or a car stopped by the side of the road. As the trial court stated, “You actually have a car overturned which is a significant set of circumstances, off the road, into a wooded area, having struck a tree.” The circumstances support the inference that the car was going at a high rate of speed. Padgett had a facial laceration consistent with the blood in the car and the blood on the deployed air bag. He refused to say anything upon questioning by officers except that he was not driving, and he refused to take field sobriety tests or a blood test, which indicates his fear of the results and a consciousness of guilt. See Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St.2d 121, 122, 239 N.E.2d 40 (1968); Carnes at ¶ 14.
{¶18} Padgett also argues that the other two individuals who were in the car and who had fled the scene could have been the driver. But Officer Price specifically testified that the blood stains in the car and on the air bag were consistent with Padgеtt‘s injuries, particularly the laceration on his face. They were not consistent with the injuries of the other two passengers.
{¶19} Our review of the record shows that a rational trier of fact, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found that the state proved all of the elements of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a vehicle without reasonable control beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Padgett‘s convictions, and we overrule his first assignment of error.
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Padgett contends that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trier of fact lost its way and created such a manifest
{¶21} Reversal of a conviction and a grant of a new trial should only be done in “exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Hamilton at ¶ 29. The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented. Id.; Panzeca, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190474 and C-190475, 2020-Ohio-4448, at ¶ 20. This is not that exceptional case. Consequently, we overrule Padgett‘s second assignment of error and affirm his convictions.
Judgment affirmed.
MYERS, P.J., and HENDON, J., concur.
SYLVIA S. HENDON, retired, from the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.