City of Bay Village v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (8-19-2004)
This text of 2004 Ohio 4348 (City of Bay Village v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (8-19-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} In August of 2003 then thirty-two-year-old Moore was stopped while driving on Lake Road in Bay Village. He was arrested and charged with weaving,2 and driving under the influence.3 He submitted to a breath test at the police station, which revealed his blood alcohol content to be 0.121%.
{¶ 3} He pleaded not guilty to the offenses and filed a motion to suppress, which claimed that the traffic stop violated his state and federal constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, Officer John L. Guzman testified that he stopped Moore because his car appeared to be weaving when making required lane shifts through a construction zone. Moore argued that the evidence did not support a traffic stop because Officer Guzman admitted that his large SUV did not cross the center line, that the road was rough and the lanes in the construction zone were narrower than usual.
{¶ 4} The judge denied Moore's motion to suppress, the weaving charge was nolled, and he pleaded no contest to an amended charge of driving under the influence in violation of Bay Village Cod. Ord.
{¶ 5} We need not address either assignment of error, however, because the record shows that Moore did not request a stay of the sentence, and he has paid the fine and served his license suspension. When a defendant voluntarily satisfies a misdemeanor sentence, "an appeal from the conviction is moot unless the defendant has offered evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he or she will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights stemming from that conviction."4 This rule is no less applicable to convictions for driving under the influence than it is for other misdemeanors,5 and Moore has failed to argue or present evidence that the conviction subjects him to a collateral disability sufficient to allow this appeal. Moreover, we note that the Berndt court rejected a claim that the possible enhancement of a future offense was a qualifying collateral disability, because "no such disability will exist if [the defendant] remains within the confines of the law."6 Therefore, the appeal is moot.
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee shall recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Rocky River Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dyke, J., and Cooney, J., Concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 Ohio 4348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-bay-village-v-moore-unpublished-decision-8-19-2004-ohioctapp-2004.