COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61287 VILLAGE OF OAKWOOD : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION EDDIE L. BYRD : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 19, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Bedford Municipal Court : Case Nos. 90 CRB 01319A, D,F,G,H,I JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: JOSEPH DIEMERT, JR., Prosecutor Village of Oakwood 1360 S.O.M. Center Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124 For defendant-appellant: PATRICK E. TALTY Attorney at law 20800 Center Ridge Road, #211 Rocky River, Ohio 44116-4386 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: After a bench trial, defendant-appellant Eddie Byrd, Jr. was found guilty of three counts of assault (R.C. 2903.13), one count of disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11), and one count of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33). Appellant now timely appeals his convic- tions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's decision. The pertinent testimony at trial was as follows: John T. Zaccaro, a Lieutenant with the Oakwood Village Police Department, testified that at 3:26 a.m. on July 9, 1990, he responded to a domestic disturbance at 7430 Macedonia Road in Oakwood Village. Lieutenant Zaccaro was working that shift along with Officer Christine Sapanaro, who arrived at the scene approximately at the same time. Appellant and his father, Eddie Byrd, Sr., exited the house, and appellant refused to identify himself or cooperate with the officers' investigation of the complaint of domestic violence. Appellant became abusive toward Lt. Zaccaro and was placed under arrest for obstructing official business and disorderly conduct. When attempting to place appellant under arrest, appel- lant began swinging his arms violently. Officer Sapanaro tried to assist Lt. Zaccaro in gaining control of appellant. Also, two - 2 - officers from Walton Hills and two officers from the City of Bedford arrived on the scene to held bring appellant under con- trol and into custody. Appellant kicked Lt. Zaccaro in the knee and choked Officer Sapanaro around the neck. Also, appellant kicked the head of Officer Bergold of the City of Bedford Police Department and bit the left thigh of Officer Shultz of the Walton Hills Police Department. Appellant was finally subdued and placed under arrest. Lt. Zaccaro identified the appellant in court as the male who committed these assaults. Officer Christine Sapanaro of the Oakwood Village Police Department corroborated the testimony of Lt. Zaccaro that appel- lant refused to identify himself and refused to be placed under arrest. Appellant pinned Officer Sapanaro against a car and grabbed her throat. Back-up officers arrived on the scene, and appellant was eventually subdued. Michael Bergold, an officer with the City of Bedford Police Department, testified that he arrived on the scene at approxi- mately 3:35 a.m. While attempting to help the other officers to take appellant into custody, Officer Bergold was kicked in the head by appellant, causing his police hat to fly a distance away. Donald Shultz, an officer with the Walton Hills Police Department, testified that he arrived on the scene at approxi- mately 3:27 a.m. Officer Shultz testified that he was bitten in - 3 - the leg by the appellant while attempting to put handcuffs on him. Eddie Byrd, Sr., Gerroy Byrd and Grace Byrd testified for the appellant. Each testified that it was co-defendant Gerroy Byrd that Lt. Zaccaro first approached and that he was the one who first had a confrontation with Lt. Zaccaro. Based upon the above, the trial court found appellant guilty of three counts of assault (R.C. 2903.13), one count of disorder- ly conduct (R.C. 2917.11), and one count of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33). Appellant now timely appeals, raising two as- signments of error for our review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED (sic.) IN FINDING AP- PELLANT GUILTY WHERE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE CREATED A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD COMMITTED THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH APPELLANT WAS ACCUSED. Appellant contends that his convictions are against the mani-fest weight of the evidence based on the defendant's wit- nesses' testimony that the identify of the male who Lt. Zaccaro first confronted was co-defendant Gerroy Byrd and not appellant Eddie Byrd, Jr. This argument is without merit. In addressing a claim that the convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consi- ders the credibility of the witnesses, and determines whether, in - 4 - resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the con- viction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Mart- in (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. It is primarily the function of the trier of fact to deter- mine the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Where the record reveals that a conviction was based upon sufficient evidence, an appellate court may not re- verse a verdict of the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 19 Ohio St.2d 230. In the present case, Lt. Zaccaro testified that the male he first confronted outside the house was the appellant. This tes- timony was corroborated by Officer Sapanaro and three other offi- cers who testified that the appellant was the male who kicked, choked and bit them in his attempts to resist arrest. Therefore, competent, credible evidence existed to support the trial court's finding that appellant was guilty of three counts of assault, one count of disorderly conduct, and one count of resisting arrest. The trier of fact was free to find the state's witnesses more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Assignment of Error I is overruled. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II THE ISSUE OF APPELLANT'S GUILT IS NOT MOOT MERELY BECAUSE THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN SERVED AND THE FINE PAID BECAUSE APPELLANT CONTINUES - 5 - TO SUFFER COLLATERAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AS THE RESULT OF HIS CONVICTION. Appellant argues that his criminal conviction should not be dismissed as moot since there is a possibility of collateral legal consequences. This argument is well taken. Where a defendant has fully satisfied his penalty and there is no "evidence" that the defendant will suffer any collateral disability or loss of civil rights as a result of the conviction, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. State v. Johnson (198- 8), 43 Ohio App.3d 1. In the present case, the record on appeal does not contain any facts which would demonstrate that this appeal is moot. Fur- thermore, the prosecutor has not raised the issue of mootness in either his appellate brief or in a motion to dismiss. Thus, we find that appellant's appeal is not moot. Assignment of Error II is sustained. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this ap- peal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Bedford 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. HARPER, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment 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. .