State v. Cortez

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed David Cortez’s conviction for fourth-degree-felony domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A). The court held that the evidence established the victim was Cortez’s first cousin and had previously resided with him, and that the evidence was sufficient to reject his self-defense claim. The court also rejected Cortez’s manifest-weight and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel arguments.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to establish that A.R. was Cortez's first cousin, a relationship by consanguinity, and that she had resided with him for approximately two weeks. A temporary living arrangement was sufficient; the statute did not require a sophisticated, indefinite, or permanent residence.
2. The trial court properly denied Cortez's Crim.R. 29(A) motion because, viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find that Cortez knowingly struck A.R. and caused physical harm. The state also disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury did not clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice in crediting the consistent testimony of the victim, eyewitness, and responding deputies, corroborated by photographs and medical records, over Cortez's unsupported testimony.
4. Cortez failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because his claim was based on speculation and he did not identify discovery materials or demonstrate a reasonable probability that receiving them earlier would have changed the trial's outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence established that A.R. was a family or household member under R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(ii), including that she was related to Cortez by consanguinity and had resided with him.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Cortez's domestic-violence conviction and to disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the guilty verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by allegedly failing to provide Cortez complete discovery before trial and by failing to communicate adequately.

Disposition

affirmed