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.

The State of Ohio v. Crayton E. Mckittrick Jr

November 9, 2011

THE STATE OF OHIO,
APPELLEE,
v.
CRAYTON E. MCKITTRICK JR., APPELLANT. :



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Municipal Court Case No. 11-TRC-01816

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

Cite as State v. McKittrick,

: JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Crayton E. McKittrick, Jr. appeals his conviction in the Fairfield County Municipal Court for violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), driving while intoxicated, a first degree misdemeanor.

{¶2} Appellant raises what appears to be two Assignments of Error, though they are not framed as such:

{¶3} "I. DOES A COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY A CITIZEN ON A TRAFFIC OFFENSE WHERE NO UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND FILED WITH THE COURT AND NO AFFIANT HAS SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING A TRAFFIC OFFENSE AND THE PURPORTED AFFIDAVIT WAS ONLY SIGNED BY [SIC] DEPUTY CLERK AS A NOTARY PUBLIC?

{¶4} "II. DID THE FILING OF A NEW COMPLAINT IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER AND HAVING THE BENCH WARRANT DELIVERED TO LANCASTER'S POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE IT WAS NOT WORK DEPRIVE THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO TOLL THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE?"

{¶5} At the outset, we note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar governed by App. R. 11.1, which states the following in pertinent part:

{¶6} "(E) Determination and judgment on appeal

{¶7} "The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12 (A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.

{¶8} "The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form."

I.

{¶9} Appellant argues in the first Assignment of Error that the Fairfield County Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to proceed against him, as the court lacked a substantive complaint and affidavit, as required by Traf. R. 3.

{¶10} R.C. 2935.17 gives the Ohio Supreme Court the authority to provide by rule for the uniform type and language to be used in any affidavit or complaint filed in any court inferior to the common pleas court for violations in all moving traffic cases. The Ohio Supreme Court has promulgated the Ohio Traffic Rules, which are to "be construed and applied to secure the fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity and uniformity in procedure, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay". Traf. R. 1(B).

{ΒΆ11} Traf. R. 3(C) states that the Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket shall be used in all moving traffic cases and a ticket properly issued by a law enforcement officer shall be accepted for filing and disposition in ...


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.