Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent
Division, Case No. 2018 CRB 01312 K.
E. DePiero, City of Aurora Law Director, and Richard D.
Summers, McDonald Hopkins LLC, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michela J. Huth, P.O. For Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Siegfried Boehm, appeals from his
conviction for failure to control a vicious dog in the
Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division. The issues to
be determined by this court are whether the complaint is
defective when it does not include specific factual details
about the crime committed and whether arguments raising
constitutional issues for the first time on appeal after the
entry of a no contest plea are properly addressed by this
court. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the lower court.
On September 13, 2018, Boehm was issued a summons/complaint
which charged that he committed a Vicious Dog violation, a
first degree misdemeanor, in violation of Aurora Codified
On November 13, 2018, a change of plea hearing was held, at
which Boehm entered a plea of no contest to the offense as
charged. He was ordered to pay a fine of $250,
serve a suspended sentence of ten days in jail, and pay
restitution in the amount of $884.03.
Boehm timely appeals and raises the following assignments of
"[1.] The Criminal Complaint fails to comply with Ohio
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.
"[2.] Ohio Revised Code §955.11 constitutionally
preempts City of Aurora Ordinance 618.15.
"[3.] City of Aurora Ordinance 618.15 is
unconstitutional on its face."
As an initial matter, the State argues that Boehm failed to
comply with the time requirement to file his brief within 15
days as required for an accelerated appeal pursuant to
Loc.App.R. 11.1, and that the failure to follow the briefing
schedule "may result in a dismissal of the appeal sua
sponte and without notice." Boehm's brief, due to be
filed February 6, 2019, was filed on February 13. While this
court can dismiss the matter, since it has been fully
briefed, the State did not object or move to dismiss at the
time Boehm's brief was filed, and we discern no prejudice
to the State resulting from this brief delay, we decline to
In his first assignment of error, Boehm argues that the
charging document, the citation/complaint, does not comply
with the requirements of Crim.R. 3. Specifically, he contends
that it did not meet the requirement to include "the
essential elements of the offense charged," as the
complaint did not specify the definition of "vicious