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.

State v. Hess

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 30, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
PAUL HESS Appellant

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. TRC 12-04-03423

DOUGLAS C. BOND, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DEAN L. GRASE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

CARR, Judge.

(¶1} Appellant, Paul Hess, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Municipal Court. This Court affirms.

I.

(¶2} This case arises out of a traffic accident that occurred in Wooster, Ohio, on April 16, 2012. Paul Hess was charged with three counts of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and one count of failure to control. Hess initially pleaded not guilty to the charges. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on two of the three OVI charges. The State did not contest the motion, and it was subsequently granted by the trial court. After closing arguments, the trial court found Hess guilty of one count of driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of RC. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and one count of failure to control. Hess was assessed a $750 fine, and given 30-day jail sentence. Six days of the jail sentence were ordered to be served in the Wayne County Jail, and the remaining days could be served on house arrest. Hess was also placed on probation for 1 8 months.

(¶3} Hess filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, he raises two assignments of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE WAS SUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATING R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).

(¶4} In his first assignment of error, Hess argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). This Court disagrees.

(¶5} Hess challenges his conviction pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), which states, "No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, * * * [t]he person is under the influence of ...


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.