[Cite as State v. Saunders,
2017-Ohio-8557.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-160781
TRIAL NO. 16CRB-2972
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
WESLEY SAUNDERS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 15, 2017
Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, Natalia Harris, City Prosecutor, and
Christopher Liu, Appellate Director, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Demetra
Stamatakos, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Wesley Saunders appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County
Municipal Court, convicting him, after a bench trial, of assault. We affirm the
trial court’s finding of guilt, but we reverse the sentence, and remand the
cause to the trial court for resentencing because the trial court did not afford
Saunders his right of allocution.
Facts
{¶2} On December 13, 2015, Wesley Saunders was involved in a car
accident. While he was stopped at a red light, he was hit from behind by a car
driven by Laverda Taylor. The impact of the crash caused Saunders’ car to hit
the car in front of him and caused his air bag to deploy. His car started
smoking, and Saunders exited from the vehicle.
{¶3} Saunders confronted Taylor and became angry and upset when
he learned she had no car insurance. While Saunders was arguing with
Taylor, Alfred Crawford, a passenger in Taylor’s car, got out of the car.
Crawford was approached by the driver of the car that was struck by
Saunders’ car, who demanded money and tried to reach into Crawford’s
pocket. After pushing the third driver’s hand away, Crawford noticed
Saunders becoming increasingly confrontational with Taylor.
{¶4} Both Crawford and Taylor believed that Saunders was going to
strike her, so Crawford approached and asked Saunders to back away from
Taylor. Crawford and Saunders began to fight. During the altercation,
Crawford, who admitted he had been drinking tequila earlier that evening,
tripped on the curb and fell to the ground. While he was on the ground,
Saunders put him in a chokehold. While Crawford was on the ground, he was
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
repeatedly kicked and punched. Eventually, Crawford lost consciousness.
When the police arrived, Crawford was taken to the hospital to be treated.
Crawford suffered a severe concussion, a sprained knee, and multiple bruises
around his eyes, neck, and elbow.
{¶5} At trial, Saunders testified that Crawford confronted him and
accused him of causing the accident. Saunders, who believed Crawford was
intoxicated, stated that Crawford had swung at him first. Saunders responded
by engaging in a fight and putting Crawford in a chokehold to restrain him
until the police arrived. Saunders denied hitting or kicking Crawford while he
restrained him, but testified that the third driver did.
{¶6} Both Crawford and Taylor testified that Saunders hit Crawford
first, and that Saunders continued to hit and kick Crawford after he was on
the ground. After a bench trial, the court found Saunders guilty. The trial
court determined that Crawford’s testimony of the events was more credible
than Saunders’ version.
{¶7} The court continued the case for sentencing and requested a
presentence investigation (“PSI”). The victim did not submit to a victim-
impact statement for inclusion in the PSI. At the sentencing hearing, the
court invited Saunders’ counsel to speak in mitigation. However, the court
did not address Saunders and ask whether he wished to make a statement.
The court sentenced Saunders to a suspended jail term of 180 days and one
year of community control. The sentence was stayed pending appeal.
Manifest Weight
{¶8} In his first assignment of error, Saunders contends that the
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Crawford
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
started the fight, and Saunders merely defended himself. Saunders primarily
argues that the testimony of Crawford and Taylor was not credible.
{¶9} However, it is well settled law that matters as to the credibility
of witnesses are for the trier of fact to resolve. See State v. Railey, 2012-Ohio-
4233, 977 N.E.2d 703, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.). We may consider the credibility of the
witnesses, yet we are guided by the presumption that the trial court in a bench
trial, “is in the best position to take into account inconsistencies, along with
the witnesses' manner and demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses'
testimony is credible.” State v. Strider-Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
10AP-334,
2010-Ohio-6179, ¶ 13. A reviewing court must give great deference
to the factual findings of the judge regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
Id.
{¶10} Here, the trial court determined that Crawford’s testimony was
more credible than Saunders’. After reviewing the entire record, we cannot
say that the court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage
of justice that we must reverse Saunders’ conviction and order a new trial.
Therefore, the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. See State v. Thompkins, 78Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541
(1997). We overrule Saunders’ first assignment of error.
Right of Allocution
{¶11} In his second assignment of error, Saunders contends that he
was denied his right of allocution at sentencing because the court failed to
address him personally and allow him the opportunity to speak. We agree.
{¶12} The plain language of Crim.R. 32(A)(1) imposes a mandatory
duty upon the trial court to address the defendant and provide him with the
opportunity to speak before sentencing. State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352,
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
359-360, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (2000). “A Crim.R. 32 inquiry is much more than
an empty ritual: it represents a defendant's last opportunity to plead his case
or express remorse.”
Id. at 352, 359-360. When a trial court imposes
sentence without first asking the defendant whether he wishes to make a
statement in his behalf, the judgment of sentence shall be reversed and the
cause shall be remanded for resentencing, unless the error is invited or
harmless. State v. Campbell,
90 Ohio St.3d 320, 325-326,
2000-Ohio-183,
738 N.E.2d 1178.
{¶13} In the present case, the trial court failed to follow the mandate
of Crim.R. 32(A)(1) when it did not personally address Saunders and asked if
he wished to speak. Based on a review of the record before us, we cannot find
that the trial court's error was invited or harmless. Accordingly, we sustain
his second assignment of error, reverse the sentence, and remand the cause
for resentencing. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
MYERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
5
