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, City of Aurora v. Boehm

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage

August 26, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, CITY OF AURORA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SIEGFRIED BOEHM, Defendant-Appellant.

          Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division, Case No. 2018 CRB 01312 K.

         Judgment: Affirmed.

          Dean 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.

          OPINION

          MATT LYNCH, J.

         {¶1} 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.

         {¶2} 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 Ordinance 618.15(b)(2)(A).

         {¶3} 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.[1] 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.

         {¶4} Boehm timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:

         {¶5} "[1.] The Criminal Complaint fails to comply with Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.

         {¶6} "[2.] Ohio Revised Code §955.11 constitutionally preempts City of Aurora Ordinance 618.15.

         {¶7} "[3.] City of Aurora Ordinance 618.15 is unconstitutional on its face."

         {¶8} 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 do so.

         {¶9} 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 dog" ...


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.