Strongsville v. Wheeler , 2013 Ohio 1554 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Strongsville v. Wheeler, 
    2013-Ohio-1554
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 98757
    CITY OF STRONGSVILLE
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    EUGENE W. WHEELER, JR.
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Criminal Appeal from the
    Berea Municipal Court
    Case No. 12 TRD 02913
    BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Keough, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:                           April 18, 2013
    APPELLANT
    Eugene W. Wheeler, Jr., pro se
    1296 Riverwoods Drive
    Hinckley, Ohio 44233
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    George F. Lonjak
    City of Strongsville Prosecutor
    614 Superior Avenue
    Suite 1310
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
    {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Eugene W. Wheeler, Jr. (“Wheeler”), pro se, appeals his
    speeding conviction following a bench trial in Berea Municipal Court. For the reasons
    set forth below, we affirm.
    {¶2} On May 25, 2012, Wheeler was issued a citation for traveling at a speed of 73
    m.p.h. in a 60 m.p.h. zone. Wheeler pled not guilty at his arraignment. The matter
    proceeded to a bench trial on June 22, 2012, at which the trial court found Wheeler guilty
    of speeding. The trial court fined him $50, plus court costs, and stayed the imposition of
    his sentence pending appeal.
    {¶3} Wheeler now appeals, raising the following three assignments of error for
    review.
    Assignment of Error One
    The trial court erred and case should have been dismissed due to 5th
    amendment due process of law rights, 6th amendment right to a speedy trial,
    and O.R.C. 2945.71(A).
    Assignment of Error Two
    Trial court erred in proceeding with an errand trial against an objection and
    judicial notice to dismiss due to violation of right to speedy trial which was
    compromised as evidenced by the Berea Municipal Court Rule 8 governing
    time frame requests for all motions and continuances.
    Assignment of Error Three
    The trial court erred by not dismissing this case immediately upon the
    violation of appellant’s 5th amendment due process of law rights. For
    which an argument can also be made that not only was the availability to
    use the judicial procedures according to the time constraints imposed by an
    appearance date so close to the ending date for a speedy trial were
    compromised, it appears the electronic posting of the Administrative Order
    Rules of Berea Municipal Court although “It is so ordered” neither Judge
    Mark A. Comstock nor the Clerk of Court Raymond J. Wohl have officially
    signed the electronically posted Berea’s Court Rules, which is in
    accordance with Berea Rule 14 A, B, and O.R.C. 1306.06 Electronic record
    or signature satisfies legal requirements. So we can assume all records
    electronically must have an electronic signature to be valid and enforceable.
    {¶4} Within these assigned errors, Wheeler essentially argues his due process
    rights and speedy trial rights were violated. Wheeler first argues his due process rights
    were violated because the citing officer, as opposed to someone “in the judiciary or a
    clerk of court,” signed the summons in his citation. Wheeler’s argument is misguided.
    {¶5} In Ohio traffic cases, “the complaint and summons shall be the ‘Ohio
    Uniform Traffic Ticket.”’ Traf.R. 3(A). The issuing authority for tickets may be the
    law enforcement agency of the municipality.         Id. at 3(D).    “If the issuing officer
    personally serves a copy of the completed ticket on the defendant, the issuing officer shall
    note the date of personal service on the ticket in the space provided.” Id. at (E)(1).
    {¶6} In the instant case, the issuing officer cited Wheeler for traveling in excess of
    the posted speed limit. The officer personally served a copy of the completed ticket on
    Wheeler, and noted the date of personal service (May 25, 2012) and the summons date
    (June 20, 2012) in the spaces provided on the ticket. Based on the foregoing, the
    summons was properly served on Wheeler.
    {¶7} Wheeler next argues that his right to speedy trial was violated because his
    trial was set two days after his arraignment, which “gave him no time for discovery.”
    {¶8} Wheeler was charged with a minor misdemeanor under R.C. 4511.21.
    According to R.C. 2945.71(A), “a person against whom a charge * * * of minor
    misdemeanor is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial within thirty days
    after the person’s arrest or the service of summons.”
    {¶9} Here, Wheeler did not waive his right to speedy trial, but he claims that
    under R.C. 2945.72(H), the trial court should have continued his trial to allow him more
    than two days to prepare for trial.1 Based on the record before us, Wheeler’s speedy trial
    rights would have been violated if his trial was held outside the 30-day time frame
    commencing on May 25, 2012 (the date of personal service).2 Here, Wheeler proceeded
    to trial on June 22, 2012, which was within the 30-day time frame. As a result, his right
    to speedy trial was not violated.
    {¶10} Accordingly the first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled.
    {¶11} Judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
    1R.C.2945.72(H) provides that: “[t]he time within which an accused must be
    brought to trial * * * may be extended only by * * * [t]he period of any continuance
    granted on the accused’s own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance
    granted other than upon the accused’s own motion[.]”
    2Wenote that Wheeler failed to include the transcript of the proceedings as
    required by App.R. 9(A), or an acceptable alternative as required by App.R. 9.
    “Without such evidence, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings.”
    Bambeck v. Catholic Dioceses of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 86894, 
    2006-Ohio-4883
    .
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea
    Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
    FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98757

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 1554

Judges: Kilbane

Filed Date: 4/18/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014