Liverpool Twp. Police Dept., Photo Speed Div. v. Vos
This text of 2021 Ohio 1995 (Liverpool Twp. Police Dept., Photo Speed Div. v. Vos) 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
[Cite as Liverpool Twp. Police Dept., Photo Speed Div. v. Vos, 2021-Ohio-1995.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIANA COUNTY
LIVERPOOL TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT. PHOTO SPEED DIVISION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONALD VOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 20 CO 0029
Criminal Appeal from the East Liverpool Municipal Court of Columbiana County, Ohio Case No. 2020 TRCAM 9
BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.
JUDGMENT: Dismissed.
Atty. Vito Abruzzino, Columbiana County Prosecutor, 105 South Market Street, Lisbon, Ohio 44432, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Donald L. Vos, Pro se, 39916 Hazel Run Road, Hammondsville, Ohio 43930, for Defendant-Appellant. –2–
Dated: June 10, 2021
WAITE, J.
{¶1} Appellant Donald L. Vos has attempted to appeal an October 5, 2020 East
Liverpool Municipal Court judgment entry convicting him of a traffic violation. Appellant
argues that Appellee “Village of Liverpool Township Photo Speed Division” violated
several provisions of the Ohio Revised Code and that these alleged violations nullify his
conviction. For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
{¶2} Appellant’s purported notice of appeal and appellate brief contain several
fatal violations of the appellate rules. First, Appellant named the “East Liverpool
Township Photo Speed Division” as the party appellee in his first notice of appeal. In his
second notice of appeal, he amended the caption to name the “Village of Liverpool
Township Photo Speed Division” as Appellee. It is abundantly clear from the trial court’s
judgment entry that the correct party is “Liverpool Township Police Department, Photo
Speed Division.” The entity named by Appellant, “Village of Liverpool,” does not exist.
As such, Appellant failed to name the proper party as Appellee in violation of App.R. 3(D).
{¶3} Second, Appellant failed to file this appeal in the original trial court.
Pursuant to App.R. 3(A), “[a]n appeal as of right shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
with the clerk of the trial court within the time allowed by Rule 4.” Here, the case originated
in the East Liverpool Municipal Court, thus the appeal was required to be filed with the
clerk of that court. However, Appellant filed his notice of appeal with the clerk of
Columbiana County Common Pleas Court. The file stamp on the notice clearly names
the wrong court. Consequently, this Court has not received the trial court documents that
would allow for a review of the case.
Case No. 20 CO 0029 –3–
{¶4} Third, Appellant has failed to properly serve Appellee, no matter the
nomenclature, with a notice of appeal and appellate brief. Pursuant to App.R. 13(C),
(C) Manner of service. A document is served under this rule by:
(1) handing it to the person;
(2) leaving it:
(a) at the person’s office with a clerk or other person in charge or, if no one
is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office; or
(b) if the person has no office or the office is closed, at the person’s dwelling
or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who
resides there;
(3) mailing it to the person’s last known address by United States mail, in
which event service is complete upon mailing;
(4) delivering it to a commercial carrier service for delivery to the person’s
last known address within three calendar days, in which event service is
complete upon delivery to the carrier;
(5) leaving it with the clerk of court if the person has no known address; or
(6) sending it by electronic means to the most recent facsimile number or
e-mail address listed by the intended recipient on a prior court filing
(including a filing in the lower court) in which event service is complete upon
Case No. 20 CO 0029 –4–
transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not
reach the person served.
{¶5} On October 29, 2020, Appellant filed a purported notice of appeal. His
certificate of service states that he “hand delivered to East Liver (sic) Municipal Court for
East Liverpool Township and one hand delivered to Law Enforcement of the East
Liverpool Township Police Department for their Attorney.” Service cannot be effectuated
by delivering a notice of appeal and appellate brief to the trial court unless the opposing
party’s address is unavailable. This is clearly not the case, here. It is Appellant’s duty,
not the trial court’s, to serve Appellee. Similarly, simply leaving a notice of appeal at the
police station is not proper service, particularly where Appellant does not specify who he
left the document with, or if left it at the building, where he left it. Appellant took the same
erroneous actions in his attempt to serve his appellate brief.
{¶6} The appropriate Appellee in this appeal has not filed a response brief, likely
due to the lack of notice. It is questionable whether the correct party has knowledge that
this “appeal” even exists. Based on Appellant’s many fatal errors, no appeal has been
properly filed and Appellant’s current attempt at appeal is hereby dismissed.
Donofrio, P.J., concurs.
D’Apolito, J., concurs.
Case No. 20 CO 0029 [Cite as Liverpool Twp. Police Dept., Photo Speed Div. v. Vos, 2021-Ohio-1995.]
For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s appeal is
hereby dismissed. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 Ohio 1995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liverpool-twp-police-dept-photo-speed-div-v-vos-ohioctapp-2021.