State v. McGlothlin

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. McGlothlin

542 N.E.2d 692, 44 Ohio App. 3d 211, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1218

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1988

DocketOT-87-21

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 542 N.E.2d 692 (State v. McGlothlin) 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

State v. McGlothlin, 542 N.E.2d 692, 44 Ohio App. 3d 211, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1218 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is before the court on appeal from an April 14, 1987 judgment and sentence in the Port Clinton Municipal Court. Defendant-appellant, Frederick L. McGloth-lin, filed a timely notice of appeal and asserts the following as his sole assignment of error:

“The trial court erred in admitting the Bureau of Motor Vehicles computer printout sheet of the defendant’s record because it was not properly authenticated.”

Appellant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated pursuant to R.C. 4511.19. During the sentencing phase of the proceedings, the trial judge was provided with an uncertified copy of a Bureau of Motor Vehicles computer printout. Appellant was then sentenced accordingly. The instant appeal is based upon the *212 trial court’s use of the uncertified printout of appellant’s driving record.

This court has previously held that the trial court’s use of an uncertified driving report during the sentencing phase is proper. State v. Pollard (Oct. 10, 1986), Ottawa App. No. OT-86-7, unreported. Again, this court finds the use of such report proper. The trial court would have been provided the same information had it ordered a presentence investigation report pursuant to Crim. R. 32(A). Based upon the Pollard case the trial court’s use of appellant’s uncertified driving record at the sentencing phase of the case was proper. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.

On consideration whereof, the court finds that appellant has not been prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial and sentencing, and the judgment and sentence of the Port Clinton Municipal Court is affirmed. This case is remanded to said court for execution of sentence. It is ordered that appellant pay the court costs of this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Resnick, P.J., Connors and Glasser, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is before the court on appeal from an April 14, 1987 judgment and sentence in the Port Clinton Municipal Court. Defendant-appellant, Frederick L. McGloth-lin, filed a timely notice of appeal and asserts the following as his sole assignment of error:

“The trial court erred in admitting the Bureau of Motor Vehicles computer printout sheet of the defendant’s record because it was not properly authenticated.”

Appellant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated pursuant to R.C. 4511.19. During the sentencing phase of the proceedings, the trial judge was provided with an uncertified copy of a Bureau of Motor Vehicles computer printout. Appellant was then sentenced accordingly. The instant appeal is based upon the *212 trial court’s use of the uncertified printout of appellant’s driving record.

This court has previously held that the trial court’s use of an uncertified driving report during the sentencing phase is proper. State v. Pollard (Oct. 10, 1986), Ottawa App. No. OT-86-7, unreported. Again, this court finds the use of such report proper. The trial court would have been provided the same information had it ordered a presentence investigation report pursuant to Crim. R. 32(A). Based upon the Pollard case the trial court’s use of appellant’s uncertified driving record at the sentencing phase of the case was proper. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.

On consideration whereof, the court finds that appellant has not been prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial and sentencing, and the judgment and sentence of the Port Clinton Municipal Court is affirmed. This case is remanded to said court for execution of sentence. It is ordered that appellant pay the court costs of this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Resnick, P.J., Connors and Glasser, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 N.E.2d 692, 44 Ohio App. 3d 211, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcglothlin-ohioctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack