COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61228 CITY OF CLEVELAND : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : KEVIN S. DELANEY : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 29, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court, 90-CRB-24876B/C. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Lynn A. McLaughlin, Esq. City of Cleveland 8th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: Sheldon D. Schecter, Esq. 113 St. Clair Avenue Suite 375 Cleveland, OH 44114 -2- DAVID T. MATIA, C.J.: Defendant-appellant, Kevin S. Delaney, appeals from his conviction for the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The appellant's appeal involves the claim that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's appeal is not well taken. I. THE FACTS A. THE APPELLANT'S ARREST On September 23, 1990, the appellant was arrested by the Cleveland Police and charged with a violation of Cleveland Codified Ordinances 605.03(A) (disorderly conduct), Cleveland Codified Ordinances 615.08 (resisting arrest), and Cleveland Codified Ordinances 621.05 (assault on a law enforcement officer). The appellant's arrest resulted from an altercation with an off-duty Cleveland Police Officer who was working for the Old River Road Restaurant Association. B. THE APPELLANT'S NON-JURY TRIAL On January 9, 1991, a non-jury trial was commenced before the Cleveland Municipal Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offenses of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The trial court, however, found the appellant not guilty of the offense of assault on a law enforcement officer. C. THE SENTENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT On January 23, 1991, the trial court sentenced the appellant to a term of incarceration of ninety days and a fine of $500.00 plus costs with regard to the offense of resisting arrest. The -3- trial court, however, suspended eighty days of the term of incarceration, suspended $250.00 of the fine, and placed the appellant on inactive probation for a period of one year. In addition, the trial court imposed a fine of $l00.00 upon the appellant with regard to the offense of disorderly conduct. D. THE TIMELY APPEAL Thereafter, the appellant timely brought the instant appeal from his conviction for the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. II. THE SOLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The appellant's sole assignment of error is that: THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. A. THE ISSUE RAISED: THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE The appellant, through his sole assignment of error, argues that he was improperly convicted of the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Specifically, the appellant argues that his conviction for the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken. B. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MANIFEST WEIGHT The weight of the evidence adduced at trial and the credibility of all witnesses are primarily a matter for consideration by the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 231. This court will not reverse the verdict of the -4- trier of fact where there is substantial and credible evidence upon which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that all the elements of the charged offense have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Eley (1978), 58 Ohio St.2d 169. C. THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE In the case sub judice, a review of the evidence and testimony adduced at trial demonstrates that the appellant's conviction for the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct was supported by substantial credible evidence. In addition, viewing the evidence and testimony adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution results in a finding that a rational trier of fact could have found all of the essential elements of the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. In fact, the trial court directly addressed the issue of credibility of the witnesses as follows: THE COURT: All right. The Court will accept the defendant's photos into evidence. I had looked at them earlier and I have attentively listened carefully to all the testimony. As a matter of fact, I think I was writing as fast as our court reporter, because I took down everything. I think what the prosecutor says about credibility is a very important factor here, and I find that the defendant's witnesses and the defendant's testimony lacked credibility. There were some inconsistent statements. Each one told a different thing. Some say there were eight policemen. Some say there were 20. Mr. Henderson didn't remember anything. I don't understand that. Nobody ever told me, either, but I would assume that there's some activity going on in that bar to -5- be pushed out and physically harassed and threatened and to be beat up. Just that there was no restraint as to the drinking, as to the partying, you were celebrating, they couldn't remember too much. (Tr. 108.) Thus, the appellant's conviction for the offenses of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN McMANAMON, J. and SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. DAVID T. MATIA CHIEF JUSTICE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .