CLERK (^^= COURT ..; IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO. Appellee NEILL T. MULLETT
|
|
- Corey Carson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Appellee V. NEILL T. MULLETT Defendant-Appellant On Appeal from the Champaign County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District APPELLATE CASE NO CA Trial Court Case No TRD MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO APPELLANT BY APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO Gil S. Weithman ( ) Breanne N. Parcels ( ) counsel of record Champaign Municipal Prosecutor 205 S. Main St. Urbana, Ohio Telephone: (937) Fax: (937) Attorneys for State of Ohio, Appellee Halli Brownfield Watson ( ) Subashi & Wildermuth Greene Towne Center 50 Chestnut St,, Suite 230 Dayton, Ohio Telephone: (937) Fax: (937) hwatsonr,&swohiola:w.com Attorney for Appellant..; ^!r^.. `f....., CLERK (^^= COURT "'s..., F - ^^ f ; ri^ #.,^ 4.^"f.UPs'^'s^t^^l^^"^0d^F''3
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 'TABLE OF C;ONTENTS ii EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE INVOLVF,S A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ARGUMENT IN SLJPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAiV Proposition of Law I: THE TRIA:L COURT DID NOT ERR IN REQUIRING A COURT APPEARANCE FOR A SPEED OFFENSE OF MORE THAN 80 MPH... 5 A. R.C and Traf. R. 13 do not create a right to allow a defendant to dispose of all minor misdemeanor tickets through a traffic violations bureau, as the authority of a bureau is limited by judicial discretio.n > B. The Champaign County Municipal Court has established a fine schedule for all minor misdemeanors and identified offenses which may be handled by the traffic violations bureau C. Appellant waived his objection to personal appearance II. PROPOSITION OF LAW II: APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF RECKLESSNESS AND LICENSE SUSPENSION PERMITTED BY R.C A. The Appellant was given notice of the nature of his offense and the statutory penalties, as well as the potential for license suspension, and his court appearance served as his opportunity to be heard B. The U.S. Supreme Court stated the Apprendi rule regarding sentencing factors is inapplicable to a petty, non-jailable offense I 1 C. Appellant's license suspension was a collateral consequence of the finding of recklessness III. Proposition of Law III: THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLANT RECKLESS AS T'HE COURT CONSIDERED ALL APPROPRIATE FACTORS, NOT JUST THREAT TO OTIIERS IV. Proposition of Law IV: THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADVISED APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHTS BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT...> CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......> ii
3 EXPLANATION OF WHY 7":EIIS CASE INVOLVES A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST The State of Ohio agrees with Appellant's assertion that speeding tickets are probably the most common form of court interaction experienced by most Americans and Ohioans, and that a relatively small percentage of tickets are contested in court.l-iowever, while Appellant cites recent speeding ticket statistics, he ignores data compiled by the Ohio State Highway Patrol about the consequences of speeding. In 2011, speed-related crashes killed 479 people and injured 72,536 on Ohio roadways.' About 30 percent of fatal crashes, 47 percent of injury crashes and 42 percent of all crashes were attributed to speed-related factors, making speed one of the leading causes of fatal crashes in Ohio.2 Appellant's belief that he should have been able to pay his speeding ticket without a court appearance undermines the concept of judicial discretion, particularly given the circumstances of his offense. While the Ohio Revised Code and Ohio Traffic Rules require each court of record to establish a traffic violations bureau for payment of tickets without court appearances, certain offenses are expressly excluded from the traffic bureau's jurisdiction. The State of Ohio argues that the statute and the rule do not, as Appellant contends, give defendants a right to dispose of all tickets without a court appearance. Rather, the combined effect of Traf. R. 13 and R.C gives defendants the option to pay tickets for offenses that do not require a court appearance. The language of the law is permissive to allow courts judicial discretion. Just as individual courts have discretion to establish fines based on the offense, up to a statutory maxunum amount, the State of Ohio argues each court has the authority and discretion to 1 Trooper Shield Traffic Bulletin, "Speed-Related Crashes and Arrests," Jan. 2013, OHIO STATE HzGHWAY PATROL, available at: 2 id -
4 designate "must appear" offenses, particularly those which may relate to recklessness, such as grossly excessive speed. The State of Ohio agrees the issue of mandatory appearances for certain minor misdemeanors is an issue of public and great general interest previously unaddressed by Ohio case law, as almost all cited cases involving R.C primarily focus on the right to be free of arrest for minor misdemeanor offenses, rather than any court appearance subsequent to issuance of a citation. With respect to Appellant's other propositions of law, however, the State of Ohio disagrees that the circumstances of his case merit consideration by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Appellant urges an overthrow of a half-century of precedence on the issue of whether a trial court may find a traffic defendant reckless for any offense not charged as reckless operation, given the facts and circumstances of a particular offense. The general provisions of R.C were upheld as far back as 1957 in Akron v. Willingham, 166 Ohio St. 337, 338 (be.fore the statute was renumbered in 2004). Based on the state of the law at the time the trial court made the determination that Appellant's grossly excessive speed was reckless, and that the trial court identified the reasons Appellant's speed was reckless, the finding of recklessness was not error and certainly was not plain error. Moreover, Appellant's argument that suspension of his driver's license was unconstitutional fails, as suspension of driving privileges does not impact a substantial right. Suspension of a driver's license is a civil, collateral consequence and a trial court need not inform a defendant of every single collateral consequence imaginable, including driver's license suspension. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1488 (2010). Whi1e the Ohio 2
5 Supreme Court's Commission on Crinxinal Sentencing "frowns on the practice" 3 of finding traffic defendants reckless for any offense other than reckless operation, a commission report does not have the effect of a statute or case law and therefore it does not prohibit judges from invoking R.C in minor misdemeanor cases. The appropriate channel to resolve a challenge to the language of this particular statute is legislative lobbying, as the Ohio Supreme Court must generally presume statutes to be constitutional. State v. Collier, 62 Ohio St. 3d 267, 269 (1991). "It is well established that all legislative enactments must be afforded a strong presumption of constitutionality." Id. Appellant ignores the general principle that "reasonable doubt regarding the constitutionality of a legislative enactment must be resolved in favor of the General Assembly's power to enact the law," State v. McDonald, 31 Ohio App. 3d 47, 48 (1987). Because Appellant's second and third propositions of law involve plain error and the discretion of the trial court, and such general issues are not matters of public interest, great general interest or substantial constitutional questions, the Ohio Supreme Court should not consider those issues, STATEMENT OF THE C'ASF. AND FACTS The facts are undisputed. Appellant was convicted of speeding after he admitted driving 82 mph in a 55 mph zone by pleading guilty during his arraignment on November 15, 2012 in Champaign County Municipal Court. His citation, issued by a sheriff's deputy, noted the mandatory court appearance in accordance with local court rules, which require appearances for all speeding violations of greater than 80 mph, and/or more than 20 miles above the posted speed 3 Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission, A Plan f'or ^1l^isdemeanor Sentencing irol. II (traffic) at p. 36, misdemeanor_vol2.pdf. The document is undated, but prominently notes the role of Chie1`Justice Thomas Moyer (who passed away in 2010). The plan puts forth a proposal to completely overhaul Title 45 of the Ohio Revised Code.
6 limit. Appellant's speeding offense fit both categories. Appellant did not object to the court appearance before or at any time during his arraignment. Appellant acknowledged that the court advised him of his rights and consequences of each possible plea by video (as were all other defendants prior to entering the courtroom) and refused the opportunity to view the video again. Appellant indicated to the court he understood the consequences of a guilty plea and made no attempt to withdraw his plea or request a continuance to seek legal counsel prior to entering his plea. The trial court found that the offense was reckless given the circumstances observed by the deputy (high speed, passing a tractor trailer on a two-lane road with heavy traffic). 'The trial court fined Appellant $150 and imposed a license suspension of six months, and offered him the opportunity to stay half of the suspension term upon completion of a brief report on the connection between speeding and fatal crashes. After Appellant appealed to the Second District, the suspension was stayed. On July 16, 2013, the Second District reversed and remanded the case, concluding Appellant's guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent even though he acknowledged he was advised of his rights by video, and that he waived any challenge to a mandatory court appearance for his ticket by failing to object at his arraignment. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW The trial court properly required the Appellant to appear in court to be arr.aigned for his speeding offense. Appellant had no right to pay an established fine for an offense designated by the court as a "must appear" violation. Moreover, the application of R.C to Appellant's speeding offense was not unconstitutional, because the court enumerated the factors that led to the finding of recklessness. Likewise, the trial court did not abuse discretion in imposing a license suspension based on the finding of recklessness. Although the Second District Court of 4
7 Appeals remanded to the trial court based on an incomplete transcript of proceedings, the complete record clearly shows Appellant was informed as to the effect of his plea by general pronouncement prior to his court appearance. 1. Proposition of Law I: THE TRIAL COURT DII? NOT ERR IN REQUIRTNG A COURT APPEARANCE FOR A SPEED OFFENSE OF MORE THAN 80 MPH. The trial court did not err in requiring a personal appearance for Appellant's case, as the offense was not under the purview of the traffic violations bureau. A. R.C and Traf. R. 13 do not create a right to allow a defendant to dispose of all minor misdemeanor tickets through a traffic violations bureau, as the authority of a bureau is limited by judicial discretion. The Ohio Trafizc Rules encourage "simplicity and uniformity in procedure" and are promulgated under statutory authority. Traf. R. 1. Traf R. 13 requires courts to establish traffic violations bureaus to "accept appearance, waiver of trial, plea of guilty, and payment of fine and costs for offenses within its authority." While Traf R. 13 expressly lists nine offenses that traffic violations bureaus are prohibited from processing, the language of the rule specifies: "All traffic offenses except those listed in this division may be disposed of by a traffic violations bureau." Traf. R. 13 (emphasis added). The statutory use of the word "may" is generally construed to make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary.l7ennison v. Dennison, 165 Ohio St. 146 (1956). Because a bureau "may" dispose of certain offenses, it is designed to promote efficiency for both the court and the public. "Considering the alternative system without a Traffic Violations Bureau, that is, a mandatory court appearance for all, the establishment of the bureau as a permissive alternative benefits the people and the city." Columbus v. Skagg.s, No. 84AP-485 (10'h Dist.) Oct. 17, 1985, 1985 WL The Second District recognized Traf. R. 13 as a procedural rule for administrative convenience in Vandalia v. Walters, 43 Ohio App. 3d 35
8 (1988) (noting "offenses enumerated in TrafR. 13(B) are indicative of the types of behavior which lend themselves to motor vehicle accidents"). A rule for administrative convenience does not create a substantive right, unlike a statute designed to protect such. rights. Appellant also cites R.C in arguing that he should not have been required to make a personal appearance. The statute he cites outlines the right to be free from. arrest for minor misdemeanors absent special circumstances. Appellant asserts that in conjunction with Traf. R. 13, the statute supersedes a local court's discretion to determine which offenses are within the purview of the traffic violations bureau. On the contrary, the rule gives local courts flexibility to determine "mandatory appearance" offenses based on community standards, not to mention the facts of each offense. See State v. Slatter, 66 Ohio St. 2d 452 (I981). Tra R. 13 does not, as Appellant suggests, give defendants a right to pay a ticket to avoid a court appearance for all minor misdemeanor traffic offenses. The emphasized word, "may," in Traf. R. 131eaves no doubt that processing of a traffic ticket by a violations bureau is permissive, not mandatory, at the discretion of the court. Because the bureau's authority is established and limited by the Ohio Traffic Rules, neither the b-ureau nor a defendant may expand the bureau's power and authority, because it is not a court. Only the judges of a court have the power to decide which types of offenses the bureau "may" dispose of without a court appearance. Courts can reasonably conclude that grossly excessive speed is a behavior which leads to motor vehicle accidents, just as the nine offenses enumerated in Tra R. 13(B) do. Moreover, courts consider the characteristics of their communities when establishing fine schedules for each offense. Therefore, Appellant's first proposition of law should be rejected. B. The Champaign County Municipal Court has established af'ine schedule for all minor misdemeanors and identified offenses which may be handled by the trafric violations bureau. 6
9 Equal protection of the law guarantees all persons subject to legal proceedings shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. Steele, HHopkins & Meredith Co. v. Miller, 92 Ohio St. 115 (1915). The Champaign County Municipal Court ensures this equal protection by establishing a fee schedule specifying which offenses require a mandatory court appearance based on circumstances of the offense, and a fme schedule for offenses that may be processed by the traffic violations bureau. The trial court did not, as Appellant suggests, fail to establish a proper fee and cost schedule, as the schedule had been in effect since Appellant attacks the Champaign County Municipal Court's fine schedule because it mandates a personal appearance for any speeding violation of more than 80 mph or more than 20 mph over a posted speed limit. Traffi'c ticket fines are not uniform throughout Ohio. Individual courts have discretion to establish fines based on the offense. Likewise, each court has the authority and discretion to designate "must appear" offenses, and many do. An ovei view of bond schedules for courts in the Second District and other Ohio Appellate Districts is illustrative with regard to speeding offenses for which defendants must appear. The following sample of municipal and county courts is representative of a wide geographic range, from heavily-populated metropolitan cities to suburban communities, small towns, and rural areas ticket- 6 Schedule pdf 7 Fine Schedule.pdf 7
10 I "Any speed 25 MPH or more over limit in speed zone 55 and Fairbom Municipal Court over Any speed 20 MPH or more over limit in speed zone less than 55 MPH'"g Jackson County Municipal Court -- 4}' Appellate District "> 30 MPH REQUIRED APPEARANCE"9 Kettering Municipal Court "36 or more miles per hour over Mandatory Court Appearance" 10 Mason Municipal Court -12` `31-40 MPH over maximum liznit", ^ Appellate District 1Vliamisbur Municipal Court "36 & over- Mandatory appearance Montgomery County Court, «26 and over the speed limit: Appearance Required" 13 Eastern and Westeril Divisions "If you are charged with an offense that has a possible Oberlin Municipal Court - 9t^' suspension of your driving privileges you cannot pay a waiver Appellate District [...] [or] If the officer has written Mandatory Court Appearance on your ticket."14 Portage County Municipal "30 miles per hour or over the speed limit must appear in Court- 11Ih Appellate District court, is not waiverable"i5 rtuscawaras County Court Southern District- 5th "26+ must appear"16 Appellate District Wayne County Municipal "A speed violation in excess of the speed litnit by more than Court - 9`h Appellate District 30 mph requires your appearance. A speed violation of 90 mph or more requires your appearance."17 The Supreme Court of Ohio should reject Appellant's first proposition of law as it would, if adopted, create an absurd result. Many courts throughout Ohio recognize some minor misdemeanors, including excessive speed, require court appearances. Appellant argues Champaign County and other municipal courts have no discretion to treat speeding offenses more seriously based on the degree of excess speed over the posted limit O.pdf iz 42<emid= pdfs/bond%20schedule.pdf
11 Appellant's speed of 82 mph in a 55 mph zone was not a trivial speeding offense in the eyes of the trial court. In 2011, traffic crashes injured 245 people in Champaign County. 18 Of those crashes, six were fatal in 2011, followed by six more in 2012 and five to date in At Appellant's arraignfnent, the court expressed concern about the link of high speed to fatalities. The trial court considers such concerns in creating the fine schedule, as do other courts. Given the same fact pattern, Appellant would have been required to appear before courts in Bellefontaine, Cleveland, Fairborn, Montgomery County or Tuscawaras County. Therefore, for Appellant to argue that the Champaign County Municipal Court treated him unfairly by requiring a personal appearance for his speeding violation is simply ludicrous. As a question of general public interest to motorists as well as judges, the Ohio Supreme Court should settle this issue in favor of judicial discretion to designate "must appear" offenses on each court's fine schedule. C. Appellant waived his objection to personal appearance. The State of Ohio agrees with the conclusion reached by the Second District. But because the State of Ohio maintains that Appellant had no right to waive a court appearance by paying his ticket through a violations bureau, Appellant also had no grounds for objection. II. PROPOSITION OF LAW IL APPELLANTgS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF RECKLESSNESS AND LICENSE SUSPENSION PERMITTED BY R.C The trial court did not violate Appellant's constitutional rights of due process. Appellant was informed of the nature of his offense and the possible penalties. He was presumed to know the state of the law in Ohio with regar.d to speeding and recklessness. While he argues 18 "Ohio Traffic Crash Facts 01 /01 / /31/2011 All Counties," Oxto DEpAR7'MENT OF Pt,TBLre SAFETY, July 3, 2012, Table 7.01 at 93 available at CrashFacts.pdf. Ig "Champaign County Fatal Traffic Crashes 2011 to 2013 YTD," OHIO STATE HtoHwAy PATROL, 13/ChampaignFatalsl3.pdf 9
12 application of R.C was unconstitutional in his case, Appellant fails to present a credible challenge to the constitutionality of the statute and its application in his case. Ohio courts have long held that driving is a privilege, not a right. Doyle v. Ohio Bur, of Motor Vehicles, 51 Ohio St.3d 46, 554 N.E.2d 97 (1990). This privilege is regulated by the state, and although subject to due process requirements, not a substantial private interest. Maumee v. Gabriel, 35 Ohio St.3d 60, 63 (1988). To drive in Ohio, a driver "must conform to the requirements of law which establish that privilege." Mt. Vernon v. Young, No CA 45, 2006-(?hio (5^' Dist. 2006). Appellant did not conform his conduct to the law when he was speeding in the manner that resulted in his citation. The citation advised Appellant of the offense with which he was cllarged. The citation's requirement of a personal appearance served as notice of the case against him and the opportunity to be heard at his arraignment. Therefore, he was given due process. A. The Appellant was given notice of the nature of his offense and the statutory penalties, as well as the potential for license suspension, and his court appearance served as his opportunity to be heard. Appellant argues that he was deprived of notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to the fmding of recklessness. Actual notice of potential penalties for traffic violations may be imputed to a defendant from the state of the law in Ohio. Columbus v. Skaggs. The state of the law in Ohio permits courts to suspend driving privileges for certain traffic offense convictions "relating to reckless operation" under R.C ln Akron v. LVillingharn, 166 Ohio St. 337 (1957), the Ohio Supreme Court held the legislature clearly intended the license suspension provision to apply not just to the statutory offense of reckless operation under R.C , but to offenses "relating to reckless operation" as well, including speed. "As a practical matter, many different types of conduct can be reckless in connection with operation of a 10
13 vehicle. Excess speed is just one example.' State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172, 2005-Ohio at 67 (2005). The Ohio Supreme Court's Commission on Criminal Sentencing may disagree with findings of recklessness in speeding cases, but the statute permitting the practice remains unchanged. While the State recognizes the Commission's stance regarding separate charges for speeding and reckless operation, that stance does not have the effect of the statute. If Appellant desires to attack R.C , he should do so in the legislative realm, because statutes enacted by the General Assembly are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35, 616 N. E.2d 163 (1993). Appellant does not present clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that make the statute unconstitutional when applied to the facts of his case, nor does he establish that R.C is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. As a driver, he was presumed to know the state of the law. The requirement for a personal appearance for a speeding offense of more than 80 inph served as notice that his violation was a minor misdemeanor with potentially serious consequences, such as a finding of recklessness and a license suspension. B. The U.S. Supreme Court stated the Apprencli rule regarding sentencing factors is inapplicable to a petty, non-jailable offense. Appellant relies on a convoluted interpretation of federal case law to support his argument that the finding of recklessness and his license suspension were unconstitutional. Appellant claims that the rule of,flpprendi v.llrew Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 20 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000) must be applied to his case. Apprendi fully permits courts to impose ` judgment within the range prescribed by statute." Id. at 481 (emphasis in original). However, when "the underlying offense is considered `petty,' the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue arises." 11
14 Southern ZTnion Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2344, 2351, 183 L. Ed. 2d 318 (2012) (citing Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477 (1975) and Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538, 541 (1989)). Appellant's sentence was within the range prescribed by Ohio statute. As a practical matter, speeding is a non-jailable, petty offense. Because his right to jury trial was not triggered, his proposition of law on the basis of Apprendi is unfounded. C. Appellant's license suspension was a collateral consequence of the finding of recklessness. Suspension of a driver's license is a civil, collateral consequence and a trial court need not inform a defendant of every single collateral consequence imaginable. State v. Wilkinson, 2005-Ohio-314 att9 (2"d District 2005); Parma v. Benedict, 2013-Ohio-1990 at 22 (8th District 2013). Furthermore, a defendant's failure to consider collateral consequences of a guilty plea is not grounds for relief from judgment. State v. Winne, No , 2010-Ohio-2269, (2na Dist. 2010). Appellant apparently failed to consider the collateral consequences a guilty plea would carry, but the court was under no obligation to advise him of difficulties he may endure due to license suspension outside the legal framework. Regardless of the hardship created by the loss of his driving privileges, the license suspension did not violate Appellant's constitutional rights. III. Proposition of Law III: 'I'IIE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLANT RECKLESS AS THE COURT CONSIDERED ALL APPROP'ItIATE FACTORS, NOT JUST THREAT TO OTHERS. The trial court considered all appropriate factors in imposing a license suspension, including finding Appellant's conduct posed a threat to himself and others on the road. Moreover, the court exercised appropriate discretion as the suspension was not the maximum allowable by law. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse discretion. 12
15 Abuse of discretion requires a finding that the trial court's decision was "unreasonable, arbitrary and unconscionable." Blakemore v..d3lakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E. 2d 1140 (1983). A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range. State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 30, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006). Under R.O , the maximum suspension for a finding of recklessness is up to one year. If a driver "cannot demean himself as a careful user, considerate of the right of others to do likewise, he becomes a public nuisance and should be excluded temporarily or pemianently" from the use of public roadways. Mt. Vernon v. Young at 62. Appellant incorrectly asserts that he must pose a risk to others on the road to be found reckless. Recklessness may be inferred from a combination of excessive speed and other circumstances. State v. Skaggs, 185 Ohio App.3d 752, 2010-Ohio-302. "Grossly excessive speed which presents a clear safety hazard to other users of the road is one of the factors to consider along with all other evidence regarding all of the circumstances of the event." Id. at 43. Appellant argues that his conviction was based upon speed alone and that there were no other facts or circumstances to support a finding of recklessness. However, the sheriff's deputy noted that when he activated radar, Appellant was passing a tractor-trailer on a two-lane road, therefore he was in the deputy's lane of travel. As such, Appellant's conduct posed a risk to the driver of the vehicle lie was passing, and potentially the deputy as well. A court may also consider the threat speeding poses to not just others on the roadway, but the driver as well. E.g. State v. Pessefall, 87 Ohio App. 3d 222, 226, 621 N.E.2d 1371 (4`' Dist. 1993). Passing other vehicles in the wrong lane of travel is one such threat. State v. Short, No CA 42, 2004-Ohio-5985 (2nd Dist. 2004) at 7. A court can properly take into consideration 13
16 the statement of a law enforcement officer, in making a determination of the threat posed by defendant's conduct, even when the citation itself does not include such detail. Id. at 1{3, S. The trial court's decision to impose a six-month suspension of Mr. Nlullett's license was not unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. The trial court weighed the circumstances of the offense in finding him reckless, and imposed a suspension of less than the maximum one year permitted under R.C The state interest served by allowing trial courts to impose license suspension is both obvious and compelling, in view of the number of crashes, particularly fatalities, caused by drivers speeding on public roads and highways. Appellant was driving on a two lane rural road, more than 20 miles per hour over the posted limit while overtaking another vehicle, on a Sunday afternoon with heavy traffic. To argue that Appellant's conduct was a "common place speedin.g violation" or a "legal pass" ignores the fact that his grossly excessive speed created a threat to himself and the driver he passed, as well as all oncoming traffic, including the deputy. The license suspension was not an abt.ise of discretion, as the court fully weighed the circumstances of the offense and factors in mitigation before imposing the sentence. Therefore, Appellant's third proposition of law should be rejected. IV. Proposition of Law IV: THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADVISED APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHTS BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT. 1^Yie Second District Court of Appeals found that Appellant's guilty plea was invalid, because it was the product of the trial court's failure to advise him of his rights. However, the trial court substantially complied with all the requirements of Traf. R. 8(D) and Traf. R. 10, as the trial court advises all defendants of their rights and the effect of pleas prior to arraignment by video, a "general pronouncement" permitted by Traf. R. 10(D). The Second District did not exercise its ability to consider that video as part of the record in accordance with App. R. 9(E). 14
17 Consequently, the State of Ohio has filed a motion with the trial court to correct the record. The Supreme Court of Ohio may also order the correction of an omission in the record sua sponte pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R (E). Appellant admitted that he watched the video advisement of his rights before his personal appearance in the courtroom, and refused an opportunity to review it again. Although the Second District did not exercise its ability to include the video as part of the record, the Supreme Court of Ohio should review the record and decide accordingly. 1. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Appellee, State of Ohio, respectfully submits that this case does involve a matter of public interest or question of great general interest. Appellee requests the Ohio Supreme Court accept jurisdiction of this case. Respect ly sub ^^ reazine N. rce s ). Champaign Co. Asst. Municipal Prosecutor 205 S. Main St. Urbana, Ohio Telephone: (937) Fax: (937) breanne.parcels@ci.urbana.oh.us Attorney for State of Ohio, Appellee CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum was served by regular U.S. mail and electronic mail on this 23th day of September, 2013, upon: Halli Brownfield Watson Subashi & Wildermuth 50 Chestnut St., Suite 230 Dayton, Ohio hwatsona,swohiolaw> com Attorney for Appellant 15
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 12TRD2261
[Cite as State v. Mullett, 2013-Ohio-3041.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2012 CA 45 v. : T.C. NO. 12TRD2261 NEILL T. MULLETT : (Criminal
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Sharp, 2009-Ohio-1854.] COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee John W. Wise, J. Julie A. Edwards,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. MELISSA A. MURRAY : T.C. Case No. 01-TRC-6435
[Cite as State v. Murray, 2002-Ohio-4809.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : vs. : C.A. Case No. 2002-CA-10 MELISSA A. MURRAY : T.C. Case No. 01-TRC-6435
More informationSTATE OF OHIO DANIELLE WORTHY
[Cite as State v. Worthy, 2010-Ohio-6168.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94565 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANIELLE WORTHY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO CA 110. v. : T.C. NO. 04 TRC 03481
[Cite as State v. Garrett, 2005-Ohio-4832.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2004 CA 110 v. : T.C. NO. 04 TRC 03481 BRYAN C. GARRETT :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Remy, 2003-Ohio-2600.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY STATE OF OHIO/ : CITY OF CHILLICOTHE, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 02CA2664 : v. : :
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU REGINALD E. BARNES
[Cite as Cleveland Parking Violations Bur. v. Barnes, 2010-Ohio-6164.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94502 CITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as State v. Tanner, 2009-Ohio-3867.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 24614 Appellant v. ROGER L. TANNER, JR. Appellee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No TRC ) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Freeman, :
[Cite as Columbus v. Freeman, 181 Ohio App.3d 320, 2009-Ohio-1046.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, : Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No. 2007 TRC 175312) v. :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 11CR93
[Cite as State v. Atkins, 2012-Ohio-4744.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2011 CA 28 v. : T.C. NO. 11CR93 SAMUEL J. ATKINS : (Criminal
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 22, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 250776 Muskegon Circuit Court DONALD JAMES WYRICK, LC No. 02-048013-FH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Powell, 2011-Ohio-1986.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 2010-CA-58 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More informationOHIO TRAFFIC RULES Rule
OHIO TRAFFIC RULES Rule 1 Scope of rules; applicability; authority and construction 2 Definitions 3 Complaint and summons; form; use 4 Bail and security 5 Joinder of offense and defendants; consolidation
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court.
[Cite as State v. Loveridge, 2007-Ohio-4493.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 9-06-46 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. O P I N I O N DENNIS M. LOVERIDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationTMCEC Bench Book. a. Determine if the court should dismiss the case on its own motion. Go to Checklist 4-2.
CHAPTER 5 PLEAS AND DRIVING SAFETY COURSE (DSC) Most of the requirements relating to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere are contained in Article 26.13, C.C.P. The Court of Criminal Appeals
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )
[Cite as State v. Komadina, 2003-Ohio-1800.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO/ CITY OF LORAIN Appellee v. DAVID KOMADINA Appellant C.A.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Chavers, 2011-Ohio-3248.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 10CA0031 v. GREGORY A. CHAVERS Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO CA 11. v. : T.C. NO. 04 CRB 111
[Cite as State v. Bender, 2005-Ohio-919.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2004 CA 11 v. : T.C. NO. 04 CRB 111 JASON G. BENDER : (Criminal
More information[Cite as State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200.]
[Cite as State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. VENEY, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200.] Criminal procedure Colloquy
More informationReleased for Publication May 24, COUNSEL
VIGIL V. N.M. MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, 2005-NMCA-057, 137 N.M. 438, 112 P.3d 299 MANUEL VIGIL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant. Docket No. 24,208 COURT OF
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101194 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. T.M. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos and 20314
[Cite as State v. Mathews, 2005-Ohio-2011.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 20313 and 20314 vs. : T.C. Case No. 2003-CR-02772 & 2003-CR-03215
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SARKOZY, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] Criminal law Postrelease
More informationTRAFFIC COURT RULES FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL FEBRUARY 1, 1979 EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 3, 1979
TRAFFIC COURT RULES FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL FEBRUARY 1, 1979 EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 3, 1979 CURRENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1994 1 RULES REGULATING PRACTICE BEFORE THE TRAFFIC
More informationThe STATE of Ohio, Appellant, LINK, AppellEE. [Cite as State v. Link, 155 Ohio App.3d 585, 2003-Ohio-6798.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
[Cite as State v. Link, 155 Ohio App.3d 585, 2003-Ohio-6798.] The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. LINK, AppellEE. [Cite as State v. Link, 155 Ohio App.3d 585, 2003-Ohio-6798.] Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,
[Cite as State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-3931.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BROWN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-3931.] Criminal law R.C. 2935.26 Issuance
More information[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No Ohio-1574.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1574.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90519 DICKSON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WD Appellee Trial Court No.
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5351.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-12-070 Appellee Trial Court No. 11 CR 163 v. Terrance
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is
For Court Use Only 1. My true full name is 2. I understand that I am pleading GUILTY / NOLO CONTENDERE and admitting the following offenses, prior convictions and special punishment allegations, with the
More informationNO.2o1o-0498 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO NO STATE OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant
NO.2o1o-0498 IML IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO NO. 92789 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- SCOTT ROBERTS Defendant-Appellee MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
More information1= 75 FEB MARCIA J. MEh9GEla, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO : CASE NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 1= 75 vs. JEFFREY BRUCE Plaintiff -Appellee On Appeal from the First District Court of Appeals For Hamilton County
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No CITY OF WESTLAKE, : ACCELERATED DOCKET. Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Westlake v. Krebs, 2002-Ohio-7073.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 81382 CITY OF WESTLAKE, : ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND JOHN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-5585.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2012-P-0032 JUSTIN
More information***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY APPEARANCES
[Cite as State v. Clark, 2002-Ohio-6684.] ***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Morrison, 2012-Ohio-2154.] COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- DONALD MORRISON Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. W. Scott
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Sentence Vacated; Case Remanded for Resentencing.
[Cite as State v. McLaughlin, 2006-Ohio-7084.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KENYON MCLAUGHLIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CASE
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,740 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,740 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SCOTT NELSON ETEEYAN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Jackson
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, 2017 - Case No. 2017-0087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Hamilton County vs.
More informationTITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2004 Supp. 1 2 Minnesota Basic Code of Ordinances - General Provisions CHAPTER 10: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 10.01 Title of code 10.02 Rules
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Apr 22 2014 15:58:43 2013-CP-00239-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SHELBY RAY PARHAM APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Robert A. Neinast, CASE NO. 11-0435 -vs- Plaintiff - Petitioner On Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Appeals, Fifth District Case No. 2010-CA-011 Board of Trustees
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hody, 2010-Ohio-6020.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94328 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KEVIN HODY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 4/26/2010 :
[Cite as State v. Childs, 2010-Ohio-1814.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-03-076 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More information2016 PA Super 179 OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 12, Appellant Ryan O. Langley appeals from the judgment of sentence
2016 PA Super 179 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RYAN O. LANGLEY, Appellant No. 2508 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 8, 2015 In the Court
More informationTitle 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapters: 1.01 CODE ADOPTION 1.04 COMMITTEES 1.06 GENERAL NOTICE 1.08 GENERAL PENALTY AND AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITATIONS 1.09 JURISDICTION (DELETED) Ord. 08-2016 Page 1 of 9 Chapter
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 98,572. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 98,572 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DORIAN RICHARDSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A trial court has the duty to define the offense charged in the
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. 87,524 IN RE: FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT [October 17, 1996] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar Traffic Court Rules Committee petitions this Court to approve its proposed amendments
More informationSubmitted March 28, 2017 Decided. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More information[Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.]
[Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ANDERSON, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.] Criminal sentencing
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. Ismail, 2014-Ohio-1080.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100179 CITY OF CLEVELAND vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE THERESA
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Vitt, 2012-Ohio-4438.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 11CA0071-M v. BRIAN R. VITT Appellant APPEAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed August 04, 2015 - Case No. 2014-1560 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. 2014-1560 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. : ON APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON
More informationPROSECUTING ATTORNEY Post Office Box 40 BRIAN T. WALTZ West Jefferson, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 20 South Second Street Newark, Ohio 43055
[Cite as State v. Molla, 2008-Ohio-5331.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- ACHENAFI T. MOLLA Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. John W.
More informationIN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 8.02
IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 8.02 ALACHUA COUNTY COURT - CIVIL DIVISION: TRAFFIC COURT ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE WHEREAS, the orderly administration of justice requires
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. v. O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Zamora, 2007-Ohio-6973.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 11-07-04 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. O P I N I O N JASON A. ZAMORA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 4 April 2017
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. McDonald, 2011-Ohio-1964.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95651 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CASSANDRA MCDONALD
More informationTHE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO. Appellant. : August 11, 2006
[Cite as State v. Brown, 168 Ohio App.3d 314, 2006-Ohio-4174.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Appellee, : v. : CASE NO. 2005-T-0100
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY CITY OF DAYTON, OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE OF OHIO Defendant-Appellant : : :
More informationCITY OF FAIRLAWN, OHIO MAYOR S COURT
CITY OF FAIRLAWN, OHIO MAYOR S COURT LOCAL RULES OF COURT Effective February 1, 2010 INDEX RULE 1.00 SCOPE AND EFFECTIVE DATE 3 RULE 2.00 COURT SESSIONS.. 3 RULE 2.01 APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATE(S). 3 RULE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2010-Ohio-5943.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-10 v. ANTHONY K. JENKINS, II, O P I N
More informationOBERLIN MUNICIPAL COURT LOCAL RULES OF COURT
OBERLIN MUNICIPAL COURT LOCAL RULES OF COURT PREAMBLE The foundation of our government rests upon the confidence of the people in the ability of their courts to achieve liberty and justice for all under
More informationJoseph R. Burkard and Matthew A. Miller for Appellee
[Cite as State v. Shaffer, 2013-Ohio-3581.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 11-13-02 v. KIMBERLY JO SHAFFER, O P I N
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John T. Hayes, : Appellant : : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : No. 1196 C.D. 2017 Bureau of Driver Licensing : Submitted:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 12CR684
[Cite as State v. Haney, 2013-Ohio-1924.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25344 v. : T.C. NO. 12CR684 BRIAN S. HANEY : (Criminal appeal
More informationTRAFFIC TICKET PLEA POLICY PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY
TRAFFIC TICKET PLEA POLICY The following is the Chautauqua County District Attorney s plea policy for traffic tickets issued in Chautauqua County by the New York State Police and the Chautauqua County
More informationPeople v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) (December 20,2016)
People v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) 160061 (December 20,2016) DOUBLE JEOPARDY On double-jeopardy grounds, the trial court dismissed a felony aggravated DUI charge after defendant pleaded guilty
More informationTITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS
- 1 - TITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS - 2 - - 3 - CHAPTER 10: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 10.01 Title of code 10.02 Rules of interpretation 10.03 Application to future ordinances
More informationFLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS
FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 CITATIONS TO OPINIONS ADOPTING OR AMENDING RULES... 4 I. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND CONSTRUCTION...
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Schuster v. Kokosing Constr. Co., Inc., 178 Ohio App.3d 374, 2008-Ohio-5075.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCHUSTER ET AL., JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
More information109 East Main Street SCHNITTKE & SMITH McConnelsville, Ohio South High Street, P. O. Box 542 New Lexington, Ohio 43764
[Cite as State v. Biggers, 2005-Ohio-5956.] COURT OF APPEALS MORGAN COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- KENNETH BIGGERS Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. John F.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fizer, 2002-Ohio-6807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA4 : MARSHA D. FIZER, : DECISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 09CR3403
[Cite as State v. Pointer, 193 Ohio App.3d 674, 2011-Ohio-1419.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO. 24210 v. : T.C. NO. 09CR3403 POINTER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :... O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666.] STATE OF OHIO : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 02CA116 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 02CR104 BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Clark, 2016-Ohio-39.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID E. CLARK Defendant-Appellant Appellate Case
More informationSUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. On Appeal From The Second District Court Of Appeals. Appellee, Case Nos &
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio, V. Appellee, Robert W. Bates, On Appeal From The Second District Court Of Appeals Case Nos. 2007-0293 & 2007-0304 Appellant. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT ROBERT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 3/26/2012 :
[Cite as State v. Nixon, 2012-Ohio-1292.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2011-11-116 : O P I N I O N - vs - 3/26/2012
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as Carder v. Kettering, 2004-Ohio-4260.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO TERRY D. CARDER, et al. : Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO. 20219 v. : T.C. CASE NO. 2003 CV 1640
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Lawrence, 2016-Ohio-7626.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. PHILLIP H. LAWRENCE Defendant-Appellant Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Shutway, 2016-Ohio-431.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAN E. SHUTWAY Defendant-Appellant Appellate Case
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 00 CR O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Hubler, 2001-Ohio-7080.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 18912 v. : T.C. NO. 00 CR 1432 JAMES J. HUBLER : Defendant-Appellant
More informationFOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE CRIMINAL TRAFFIC WRITTEN PLEA BUREAU IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2009-01-01 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE CRIMINAL TRAFFIC WRITTEN PLEA BUREAU
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Britton, 2007-Ohio-2147.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. L-06-1265 L-06-1266 Appellee Trial Court Nos. 05-CRB-01005
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Huffman v. Cleveland, Parking Violations Bur., 2016-Ohio-496.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 103447 FORDHAM E. HUFFMAN vs.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WD Trial Court No. 2006CR0047
[Cite as State v. O'Neill, 2011-Ohio-5688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. WD-10-029 Trial Court No. 2006CR0047 v. David
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Gibson, 2014-Ohio-433.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2013-P-0047 DANELLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-10-02 v. EDWARD D. STROUB, O P I N I O N
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Palmer, 2006-Ohio-5456.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESSIE L. PALMER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Everett, 2009-Ohio-6714.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 16-09-10 v. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, JEREMY M. EVERETT, O P I N I
More informationSUPCR 1106 FOR COURT USE ONLY
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): SUPCR 1106 FOR COURT USE ONLY TELEPHONE NO: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): FAX NO. (Optional) SUPERIOR COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Purnell, 171 Ohio App.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-6160.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. PURNELL, Appellant. APPEAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Ridenour, 2010-Ohio-3373.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No: 09CA13 : v. : : DECISION AND KEITH
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Gillespie, 2012-Ohio-3485.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- JOSEPH GILLESPIE Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. W.
More informationCRIMINAL, TRAFFIC, CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIM RULES
CRIMINAL, TRAFFIC, CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIM RULES 1. JURISDICTION OF COURT: The territorial jurisdiction of the Perry County Court include all of Perry County and the monetary jurisdiction shall be the amount
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND JEFFREY POSNER
[Cite as Cleveland v. Posner, 2010-Ohio-3091.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93893 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY
More informationLIST OFFENSE(S), CASE NUMBER(S) AND DATE(S)
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): SUPCR 1109 FOR COURT USE ONLY TELEPHONE NO: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): FAX NO. (Optional) SUPERIOR COURT OF
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Bohanon, 2013-Ohio-261.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98217 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TAMEKA BOHANON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee, vs. MARK PICKENS, Petitioner-Appellant. : : : : : APPEAL NO. C-130004 TRIAL NO. B-0905088
More informationJUDGE KAREN REYNOLDS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 2 MONTAGUE COUNTY COURTHOUSE P O BOX 65 MONTAGUE, TEXAS PH: (940) FAX: (940)
JUDGE KAREN REYNOLDS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 2 MONTAGUE COUNTY COURTHOUSE P O BOX 65 MONTAGUE, TEXAS 76251 PH: (940) 894-2542 FAX: (940) 894-2545 The information contained in this packet is not offered
More information