City of Fairlawn v. Forney

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Fairlawn v. Forney

610 N.E.2d 1193, 82 Ohio App. 3d 47, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 4505

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 1992

DocketNo. 15512.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 610 N.E.2d 1193 (City of Fairlawn v. Forney) 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.

Bluebook

City of Fairlawn v. Forney, 610 N.E.2d 1193, 82 Ohio App. 3d 47, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 4505 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Cacioppo, Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Ann Marie Forney, appeals the trial court’s affirmance of her conviction in the city of Fairlawn Mayor’s Court. Forney asserts two assignments of error:

Assignments of Error

“I. The municipal court committed reversible error by failure to conduct a trial de novo on receiving the appeal from the mayor’s court.

“II. The judgment of the mayor’s court is void ab initio because the city ordinance 432.37 ‘weaving’ is constitutionally defective on it’s [sic] face and as it is applied in the instant case.

“A. On it’s [sic] face the ordinance is overbroad, vague and ambiguous;

“B. As applied the ordinance is a subterfuge, and/or a pretext.”

Appellant was found guilty of a traffic offense in the city of Fairlawn Mayor’s Court on August 22,1991. Appellant filed her notice of appeal to the Akron Municipal Court on September 19, 1991, twenty-eight days after the mayor rendered judgment. R.C. 1905.22 authorizes an appeal from a mayor’s court to a municipal court. R.C. 1905.23 requires that “[w]ithin ten days from the time a mayor renders judgment, the appellant shall file with the mayor’s court a written notice of appeal * * *." Where the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Hamersville *49 v. Reque (Jan. 27, 1992), Brown App. No. CA91-01-003, unreported, 1992 WL 12780.

In the cause at bar, appellant failed to file her notice of appeal within ten days after the mayor rendered judgment. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Forney’s appeal and the municipal court should have dismissed Forney’s appeal from the mayor’s court.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for dismissal.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Baird, P.J., and Reece, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cacioppo, Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Ann Marie Forney, appeals the trial court’s affirmance of her conviction in the city of Fairlawn Mayor’s Court. Forney asserts two assignments of error:

Assignments of Error

“I. The municipal court committed reversible error by failure to conduct a trial de novo on receiving the appeal from the mayor’s court.

“II. The judgment of the mayor’s court is void ab initio because the city ordinance 432.37 ‘weaving’ is constitutionally defective on it’s [sic] face and as it is applied in the instant case.

“A. On it’s [sic] face the ordinance is overbroad, vague and ambiguous;

“B. As applied the ordinance is a subterfuge, and/or a pretext.”

Appellant was found guilty of a traffic offense in the city of Fairlawn Mayor’s Court on August 22,1991. Appellant filed her notice of appeal to the Akron Municipal Court on September 19, 1991, twenty-eight days after the mayor rendered judgment. R.C. 1905.22 authorizes an appeal from a mayor’s court to a municipal court. R.C. 1905.23 requires that “[w]ithin ten days from the time a mayor renders judgment, the appellant shall file with the mayor’s court a written notice of appeal * * *." Where the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Hamersville *49 v. Reque (Jan. 27, 1992), Brown App. No. CA91-01-003, unreported, 1992 WL 12780.

In the cause at bar, appellant failed to file her notice of appeal within ten days after the mayor rendered judgment. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Forney’s appeal and the municipal court should have dismissed Forney’s appeal from the mayor’s court.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for dismissal.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Baird, P.J., and Reece, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 N.E.2d 1193, 82 Ohio App. 3d 47, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 4505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fairlawn-v-forney-ohioctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack