State v. Perkins , 2018 Ohio 2240 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Perkins, 
    2018-Ohio-2240
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF MEDINA                  )
    STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.       17CA0048-M
    Appellee
    v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    CURTIS PERKINS                                        MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT
    COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
    Appellant                                     CASE No.   16 TRD 05140
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: June 11, 2018
    HENSAL, Judge.
    {¶1}     Curtis Perkins appeals his conviction for overtaking and passing on the right from
    the Medina Municipal Court. We affirm.
    I.
    {¶2}     At a hearing before a magistrate, Mr. Perkins admitted that he traveled off the
    right-hand side of the road to pass another vehicle. He testified that he did so in order to avoid
    rear ending the vehicle, which he claimed had pulled out in front of him. After the hearing, the
    magistrate found Mr. Perkins guilty of violating Medina Codified Ordinance 331.04(b), issued a
    $50.00 fine, and ordered that Mr. Perkins receive two points on his driver’s license.
    {¶3}     Mr. Perkins objected to the magistrate’s decision, arguing that his conviction was
    “against the weight of the evidence, [was] contrary to the evidence and testimony presented at
    the hearings and [was] an erroneous application of the law.” He also reserved the right to
    supplement his objections after the transcript of the hearing became available. Mr. Perkins,
    2
    however, never supplemented his objections. The trial court overruled Mr. Perkins’s objections
    and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mr. Perkins now appeals, raising four assignments of
    error for our review, which we have combined for ease of consideration.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
    THE TRIAL COURT ERR[ED] WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE SUDDEN
    EMERGENCY DOCTRINE OR RULE, THUS FINDING MR. PERKIN[S]
    GUILTY OF THE CHARGE OF UNSAFE PASSING ON THE RIGHT.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
    THE TRIAL COURT ERR[ED] BY IMPOSING A STRICT LIABILITY
    STANDARD TO A STATUTE THAT HAS A RECKLESS CULPABLE
    STATE.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
    MR. PERKIN[S’S] CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT
    EVIDENCE. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S
    CRIM.R. 29 MOTION.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
    THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
    EVIDENCE.
    {¶4}    In his assignments of error, Mr. Perkins challenges the sufficiency and manifest
    weight of the evidence presented in support of his conviction. He also challenges the trial
    court’s failure to apply the sudden-emergency doctrine, as well as its imposition of a strict-
    liability standard to Medina Codified Ordinance 331.04(b). For the reasons discussed below, we
    decline to address the merits of Mr. Perkins’s assignments of error.
    {¶5}    Traffic Rule 14 governs magistrates and provides that “[p]roceedings before the
    magistrate shall be conducted as provided in Criminal Rule 19.” Traf.R. 14(C). Criminal Rule
    19(D)(3)(b) governs objections to a magistrate’s decision.       It provides, in part, that “[a]n
    3
    objection to a magistrate’s decision shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for
    objection.” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(ii). It further provides that, “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error,
    a party shall not assign on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion
    * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Crim. R.
    19(D)(3)(b).” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv).
    {¶6}    As this Court has acknowledged, Criminal Rule 19 and Civil Rule 53 are
    “identical with respect to the requirements for objecting to a magistrate’s decision.” City of
    Akron v. Jackson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27077, 
    2014-Ohio-2036
    , ¶ 9, fn. 2. Because the
    requirements are identical, it is appropriate for this Court to rely on our precedent relative to
    Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b) in examining Criminal Rule 19(D)(3)(b). See In re T.S., 9th Dist. Medina
    No. 11CA0033-M, 
    2012-Ohio-858
    , ¶ 8; State v. Masalko, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 15AP0011, 2015-
    Ohio-5179, ¶ 5.
    {¶7}    Regarding Civil Rule 53, this Court has stated that “objections [that] are
    conclusory statements which contain no factual or legal support” “[do] not comply with the
    specificity requirements * * *.” Young v. Young, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22891, 
    2006-Ohio-2274
    ,
    ¶ 7. Absent a claim of plain error, failure to comply with these requirements results in a waiver
    of any alleged error on appeal. Id.; Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv).
    {¶8}    Here, as previously noted, Mr. Perkins objected to the magistrate’s decision on
    the basis that it was “against the weight of the evidence, [was] contrary to the evidence and
    testimony presented at the hearings and [was] an erroneous application of the law.” These
    conclusory statements, which were devoid of any factual or legal support, did not satisfy the
    specificity requirements of Criminal Rule 19(D)(3)(b)(ii). Young at ¶ 7. Furthermore, Mr.
    Perkins has not asserted a claim for plain error. He, therefore, has waived any alleged error on
    4
    appeal. Id.; Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv). Accordingly, Mr. Perkins’s assignments of error are
    overruled.
    III.
    {¶9}    Mr. Perkins’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
    Municipal Court is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Medina Municipal
    Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
    of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellant.
    JENNIFER HENSAL
    FOR THE COURT
    SCHAFER, P. J.
    CARR, J.
    CONCUR.
    5
    APPEARANCES:
    DAVID V. GEDROCK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
    GREGORY HUBER, J. MATTHEW LANIER, and MEGAN A. PHILBIN, Prosecuting
    Attorneys, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17CA0048-M

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 2240

Judges: Hensal

Filed Date: 6/11/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/11/2018