[Cite as State v. Travick, 2026-Ohio-3100.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025 CA 00128
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
Case No. 2025 CR 0746
ANTON TRAVICK
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant
Date of Judgment Entry: August 11, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: KYLE L. STONE, CHRISTOPHER A. PIEKARSKI, for PlaintiffAppellee; ANTHONY KOUKOUTAS, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Anton Travick, appeals his August 27, 2025 convictions
following a bench trial in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. Plaintiff-Appellee is State
of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On April 29, 2025, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Travick on one count
of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11, one count of strangulation in violation of
R.C. 2903.18, one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, and one count of
obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31. Said charges arose from an incident
between Travick and his live-in girlfriend.
{¶ 3} A bench trial commenced on August 20, 2025. By judgment entry filed August
27, 2025, the trial court found Travick guilty of strangulation and domestic violence and not
guilty of felonious assault and obstructing official business. The trial court sentenced Travick
to thirty-six months on the strangulation count and forty-eight months on the domestic
violence count, to be served concurrently.
{¶ 4} Travick filed an appeal with the following assignments of error:
I
{¶ 5} "THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS AGAINST APPELLANT, AND THE CONVICTIONS
MUST BE REVERSED."
II
{¶ 6} "THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, AND MUST BE REVERSED."
I, II
{¶ 7} In Travick's two assignments of error, he claims his convictions were against
the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 8} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at trial
to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Jenks,
61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "The relevant inquiry 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 crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at paragraph two of the
syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
{¶ 9} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses
and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or trial court] clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).
See also State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be
exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶ 10} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990). The trier
of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each
witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77
Ohio St.3d 415, 418 (1997).
{¶ 11} Travick was convicted of strangulation in violation of R.C. 2903.18(B)(2)
which states: "No person shall knowingly . . . [c]reate a substantial risk of serious physical
harm to another by means of strangulation or suffocation." "Strangulation or suffocation" is
defined as: "any act that impedes the normal breathing or circulation of the blood by applying
pressure to the throat or neck, or by covering the nose and mouth." R.C. 2903.18(A)(1).
"Substantial risk" means "a strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant
possibility, that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist." R.C.
2901.01(A)(8).
{¶ 12} Travick was also convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A) which states: "No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm
to a family or household member." "Knowingly" is defined in R.C. 2901.22(B) as follows:
A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is
aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will
probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances
when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When
knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high
probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious
purpose to avoid learning the fact.
{¶ 13} "Physical harm to persons" means "any injury, illness, or other physiological
impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). As stated by this court
in State v. Spade, 2009-Ohio-2004, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.):
"Visible injury" is not the definition of "physical harm." Further, R.C.
2919.25 does not require the state to prove that a victim has sustained actual
injury since a defendant can be convicted of domestic violence for merely
attempting to cause physical harm to a family member. State v. Nielsen (1990),
66 Ohio App.3d 609, 585 N.E.2d 906. "Attempt" occurs "when a person
knowingly engages in conduct that, if successful, would result in physical
harm." R.C. 2923.02.
See also State v. Culbertson, 2026-Ohio-333, ¶ 38 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Bailey, 2023-Ohio1267, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.) ("'The slightest injury is enough proof of physical harm'").
{¶ 14} During the bench trial, the trial court heard from the victim, two law
enforcement officers, and Travick.
{¶ 15} At the time of the incident, the victim was 26 years old and Travick was 45. T.
at 88, 196-197. The victim testified Travick was angry with her because she was going to be
evicted from her apartment for inadvertently "stealing" a neighbor's package and he would
then be homeless (they resided together after his release from jail). T. at 17, 19, 23-24, 81-82,
84-85. The two argued; at the time, the victim was in a wheelchair due to a leg injury. T. at
25-26. She is also a diabetic and frequently needs to drink and urinate. T. at 27, 30. The
victim testified she propped herself up by the kitchen sink to get a drink of water when Travick
"comes at me and wraps his hands around my neck and chokes me for the first time." T. at
27-28. He used both hands and applied his weight and she went unconscious for maybe three
minutes; when she awoke, she was on the floor. T. at 29. She told him she had to go to the
bathroom, but he made her pee in a cup. T. at 31. Travick himself peed in a glass and he
then made the victim drink it and her own. Id. He told her if she puked, he would put her
face in it. T. at 32. She went into the bathroom and Travick followed her in; he grabbed her
neck again, choked her, and pushed her head against the wall until she went unconscious
again. T. at 35. The victim eventually made it to the kitchen and started crying. T. at 37. Travick stated "[a]ll right, bitch, I'll give you something to cry about" and proceeded to strike
her with a broomstick. Id. He struck her six or seven times on her arm, her side, and her legs.
T. at 37-38. At times during the ordeal, the victim retrieved a hidden cellphone from her leg
brace and contacted friends for help and eventually the police. T. at 36, 39-40, 74. She
identified the marks and scratches on her neck in photographs; the photographs were taken
some thirty minutes after the police had arrived. T. at 44-46, 57; State's Exhibits 1-5. She
testified after the incident, her voice was hoarse and it hurt to eat and swallow; those
symptoms lasted for a couple weeks. T. at 49-50. She refused to go to the hospital because
she was "hard-headed." T. at 50. The victim explained she reached out to Travick after the
incident because she was sad and depressed and "I'd rather be getting abused than be alone.
That's to the point I was at." T. at 50-51, 94-95.
{¶ 16} On cross-examination, the victim admitted that when she spoke to the
responding officer, she was not in a wheelchair or on crutches. T. at 54-56. She explained
she used a wheelchair in her apartment because her foot would swell and she could not walk
on it. T. at 55. She agreed although Travick used both hands around her neck, the
photographs depicted marks on only one side of her neck. T. at 56.
{¶ 17} Police Officer Zachary Smith responded to the scene. He testified upon
meeting the victim, she was "very upset" and "actually having trouble speaking." T. at 102.
He noticed she was "wincing in pain multiple times around her abdomen" during their
interaction. T. at 115. Officer Smith attempted to calm her down and observed red marks on
the left side of her neck. T. at 102, 119; State's Exhibit 7. He did not observe any major marks
on the right side of the victim's neck, but she complained "about pain on the right side as
well." T. at 119. He noted they were not in a well-lit area during their interaction. T. at 129. The victim told Officer Smith what had occurred while awaiting backup to arrive to locate
Travick. T. at 102-105, 107. Once the victim followed up at the police station, Officer Smith
received "more in-depth information on the incident." T. at 107, 130. She described "the
assaults and then everything else . . . up until she called the police." T. at 108. After Travick
was apprehended, he admitted to the urine incident, but claimed "that was her choice and
that she wanted to do so." T. at 113. Officer Smith charged Travick with felonious assault
and domestic violence based on the fact that the two were live-in boyfriend and girlfriend and
based on the victim's allegations that he had struck her with a broomstick and her wincing in
pain. He also charged Travick with strangulation based on the victim's allegations and the
multiple marks on her neck and her difficulty in speaking. T. at 113, 115-116.
{¶ 18} Travick testified the victim was agitated because she was facing eviction and
blamed him for turning her in for stealing the neighbor's package. T. at 178. The two verbally
argued and then he went to sleep until he heard knocking at the door. T. at 181-182. After
Travick realized police were at the door, he got dressed and exited the apartment via the
window. T. at 200. He was aware of the broomstick, but claimed to have never touched it
that night. T. at 183-184. He denied any physical involvement with the victim and explained
the victim "pissed in the cup and drunk that pee." T. at 184-185. He admitted when he was
released from jail with an ankle monitor, there was a no contact order in place with the victim,
but he did not have anywhere else to go. T. at 187, 192. He denied placing the scratches and
marks on the victim's neck. T. at 191.
{¶ 19} The parties stipulated to Travick's two prior convictions for domestic violence.
T. at 157.
{¶ 20} At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Travick guilty of
strangulation and domestic violence. Travick now argues the State failed to prove there was
a substantial risk of serious physical harm by means of strangulation and that he knowingly
caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim to establish domestic violence.
Travick further argues the victim's testimony was not credible. We disagree with Travick's
argument.
{¶ 21} As noted above, the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact.
Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182. As the trier of fact, the trial court had before it two versions of
the incident: the victim's who provided great detail and Travick's who denied everything
because he was sleeping. Officer Smith's testimony of the emotional state of the victim, her
difficulty in speaking, the scratches and marks on her neck, and her wincing in pain,
corroborated her account if believed by the trier of fact.
{¶ 22} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of strangulation and domestic
violence were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 23} Upon review, we find sufficient evidence, if believed, to support Travick's
convictions for strangulation and domestic violence; we do not find that the trial court clearly
lost its way nor do we find any manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶ 24} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
{¶ 25} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
{¶ 26} Costs to Appellant.
By: King, P.J.
Montgomery, J. and
Popham, J. concur.