State v. Delbrugge
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Delbrugge, 2011-Ohio-4435.]
COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : : JACKIE L. DELBRUGGE : : Defendant-Appellant :
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
Case No. 11CA000001
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Cambridge Municipal Court, Case No. 10TRC05980
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 1, 2011
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM H. FERGUSON RONALD C. COUCH 150 Highland Avenue 121 West Eighth Street Suite 2 Cambridge, OH 43725 Cambridge, OH 43725 Farmer, J.
{¶1} On September 19, 2010, appellant, Jackie Delbrugge, was charged with
one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in violation of R.C.
4511.19 and one count of failure to control in violation of R.C. 4511.202.
{¶2} A trial before a magistrate on the OVI charge was held on December 21,
2010. By decision filed same date, the magistrate found appellant guilty and
recommended a sentence of 60 days in jail with 47 days suspended. On same date,
the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision. In a separate judgment
entry, the trial court found appellant guilty of the failure to control count on appellant's no
contest plea. Appellant filed objections on January 14, 2011, along with a notice of
appeal. The trial court never ruled on the objections.
{¶3} This matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error
is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE DECISION WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY AND MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
{¶5} Appellant claims her conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. We
disagree. {¶6} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307. On
review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and
created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and
a new trial ordered." State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. See also, State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. The granting of a new trial "should be
exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶7} Appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) which states the following:
{¶8} "(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley
within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:
{¶9} "(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a
combination of them."
{¶10} We note the magistrate's handwritten findings that were approved and
adopted by the trial court were not reduced to a typed version pursuant to Loc.R.
9(B)(1) of the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate's December 21, 2010 findings are barely legible. In addition, appellant filed objections to the magistrate's
decision on January 14, 2011 in violation of Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(i):
{¶11} "(b) Objections to magistrate's decision.
{¶12} "(i) Time for filing. A party may file written objections to a magistrate's
decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has
adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Crim. R.
19(D)(4)(e)(i).***"
{¶13} The objections sub judice were filed beyond the fourteen day mandate of
Crim.R. 19, and were filed contemporaneously with a notice of appeal. The trial court
never ruled on the objections, and a transcript relative to the objections was never filed
as required by Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iii):
{¶14} "(iii) Objection to magistrate's factual finding; transcript or affidavit. An
objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact
under Crim. R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence
submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a
transcript is not available. With leave of court, alternative technology or manner of
reviewing the relevant evidence may be considered. The objecting party shall file the
transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections unless the
court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other good cause. If
a party files timely objections prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the
party may seek leave of court to supplement the objections."
{¶15} Accordingly, we find the issues presented as to the sufficiency and
manifest weight of the evidence have not been preserved for appeal. {¶16} The sole assignment of error is denied. {¶17} The judgment of the Cambridge Municipal Court of Guernsey County,
Ohio is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
s / Sheila G. Farmer__________________
_s / W. Scott Gwin____________________
_s / Julie A. Edwards__________________
JUDGES
SGF/808IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JACKIE L. DELBRUGGE : : Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11CA000001 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Cambridge Municipal Court of Guernsey County, Ohio is affirmed.
Costs to appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2011 Ohio 4435 (State v. Delbrugge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.