Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Findlay v. Raymond S. Lachance

November 7, 2011

CITY OF FINDLAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RAYMOND S. LACHANCE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from Findlay Municipal Court Trial Court No. 10CRB01053A

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Preston, J.

Cite as Findlay v. LaChance,

OPINION

Judgment Affirmed

Case No. 5-11-25

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Raymond S. LaChance (hereinafter "LaChance"), appeals the Findlay Municipal Court's judgment entry of conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} On September 13, 2010, LaChance was charged with obstructing official business in violation of Section 525.07(A) of the City of Findlay Codified Ordinances. (Doc. No. 1).

{¶3} On September 24, 2010, LaChance filed a written plea of not guilty. (Doc. No. 3). On May 11, 2011, the matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the trial court found LaChance guilty. (Doc. No. 19). The trial court sentenced LaChance to forty (40) days in jail with thirty (30) days suspended. (Id.). The trial court allowed LaChance to obtain credit for five (5) jail days if he participated in the WORC program for five (5) days and allowed LaChance to complete fifty (50) hours of community service to fulfill the remaining five (5) jail days. (Id.). The trial court further ordered that LaChance have no criminal violations for one (1) year and ordered that LaChance pay a $250 fine and all costs. (Id.).

{¶4} On May 31, 2011, LaChance filed a notice of appeal, along with a motion to stay the sentence pending appeal. (Doc. No. 24). On June 1, 2011, the trial court granted the motion to stay. (Doc. No. 26).

{¶5} LaChance now appeals raising two assignments of error for our review. We elect to address both assignments of error together.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BECAUSE SUCH VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II

THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT PERFORMED AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT THAT ACTUALLY HAMPERED OR IMPEDED PUBLIC ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.