State v. Enos , 2015 Ohio 5466 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. Enos, 2015-Ohio-5466.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2015-P-0029
- vs - :
GARY W. ENOS, JR., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division.
Case No. R 2015 TRD 2365.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina Drnjevich, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Gary W. Enos, Jr., pro se, 1464 Front Street, Apt. 4, Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221
(Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Gary W. Enos, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Portage County
Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, finding him guilty of violating R.C. 4511.39, failure to
use a turn signal, a minor misdemeanor. Appellant was fined $100 and court costs,
which he subsequently paid. For the reasons that follow, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} Appellant has appeared pro se both at the lower court and on appeal.
Below, this matter was tried to the bench. The testimony of Trooper Chester Engle of
the Ohio State Highway Patrol demonstrates that he first observed appellant failing to
use his turn signal when executing a left-hand turn. Driving behind appellant’s vehicle,
Trooper Engle observed appellant execute a second turn without first signaling.
Trooper Engle continued to follow appellant; appellant stopped at a stop sign and made
a left hand turn, again without using his turn signal. After he observed appellant fail to
use his turn signal for the third time, he initiated a traffic stop.
{¶3} Trooper Engle confirmed that both appellant’s right- and left-hand turn
signals were in proper working order. Appellant failed to comply with Trooper Engle’s
order to exit the vehicle, and backup was called. Appellant then began to video tape
Trooper Engle via his cellular telephone. Eventually, appellant exited the vehicle. At
this point, appellant stuck his tongue out and began to make inappropriate gestures
toward a nearby establishment. Appellant was charged with failure to use his turn
signal, a violation of R.C. 4511.39.
{¶4} After a bench trial, appellant was found guilty of violating R.C. 4511.39
and fined $100 and court costs. Appellant paid the fine and court costs. There is
apparently still $3.00 in costs owing, but this is a cost associated with filing of the
appeal. Appellant filed a timely appeal and asserts the following assignments of error:
[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial error in entering a finding
of guilty based upon its opinion that the appellant exhibited poor
attitude and conduct with the trooper during the traffic stop.
[2.] The evidence does not satisfy a sufficiency of evidence
standard necessary to convict the appellant.
[3.] The court committed prejudicial error by convicting the
appellant against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2
[4.] The court committed an abuse of discretion in overruling the
appellant’s objection to the appellee’s questioning of the trooper,
when such questions were irrelevant to the case being tried.
{¶5} In this case, appellant voluntarily paid his fine and costs.
[W]here a criminal defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor,
voluntarily satisfies the judgment imposed upon him or her for that
offense, 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.
State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226 (1994), citing State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d
236 (1975) and State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (1987). At oral argument, appellant
asserted that this conviction resulted in a 12-point license suspension, yet there is
nothing in the record to support his contention.
{¶6} When analyzing appellant’s assigned errors on appeal, it is clear we must
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a
conviction, the reviewing court asks whether reasonable minds
could differ as to whether each material element of a crime has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bridgeman, 55
Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978). If reasonable minds could
differ as to whether each material element has been proven, a
Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal must be overruled. Id. at 263-64.
The evidence adduced at trial and all reasonable inferences must
be viewed in the light most favorable to the state. State v.
Maokhamphiou, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2006-P-0046, 2007-Ohio-
1542, ¶20.
In contrast, a manifest weight challenge requires the reviewing
court to play the role of a ‘thirteenth juror.’ State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). A reviewing court should be cognizant
of the fact that the jury is in the best position to assess the
credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230,
paragraph one of the syllabus (1967). For an appellate court to
overturn a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the
evidence, it must be found that ‘“the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way
and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
3
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. The
discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in
the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction.”’ Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v.
Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1983).
State v. Lynch, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0039, 2014-Ohio-1775, ¶20-21.
{¶7} Here, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to demonstrate that
appellant violated R.C. 4511.39, which states, in pertinent part:
(A) No person shall turn a vehicle or trackless trolley or move right
or left upon a highway unless and until such person has exercised
due care to ascertain that the movement can be made with
reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the
manner hereinafter provided.
When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left
shall be given continuously during not less than the last one
hundred feet traveled by the vehicle or trackless trolley before
turning[.]
{¶8} The evidence presented at trial reveals Trooper Engle was traveling
behind appellant’s vehicle, traffic was light that evening, and his level of visibility was
clear. Trooper Engle testified he was one hundred percent certain that he observed
appellant effectuate three turns without first signaling. Furthermore, the dash-cam video
admitted into evidence depicts appellant making a left-hand turn without first signaling.
Therefore, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find appellant guilty of
violating R.C. 4511.39 beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶9} Appellant also maintains the trial court’s finding of guilt was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. As previously discussed, the trial court
found appellant failed to signal before making a turn. At trial, the court heard the
testimony of Trooper Engle as well as appellant, who testified that he did, in fact, signal
prior to making his turns. The trial court, as the finder of fact, found appellant’s
4
testimony to be unpersuasive. Nothing in the record indicates the trial court lost its way
in finding appellant guilty of violating R.C. 4511.39. Accordingly, the finding of guilt was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶10} We note the record demonstrates that appellant repeatedly failed to
comply with the trooper’s orders to exit the vehicle, to the point Trooper Engle had to
call for back-up. This was corroborated by the admission of the dash-cam video.
Further, the dash-cam video depicted appellant making inappropriate gestures toward
an establishment when being patted down for weapons. At trial, appellant showed
disrespect for the judicial process by continually interrupting the trial judge. On appeal,
appellant argues the trial court found him guilty based solely on his conduct with
Trooper Engle. The record, however, demonstrates otherwise. At the conclusion of the
trial, the court stated: “So the court is going to enter a finding of guilty, assess a fine of
$100 and court costs.” After the imposition of the fine and sentence, the trial court
commented on appellant’s behavior and attitude.
Mr. Enos, for whatever it is worth, this has nothing to do with the
turn signal. It has everything to do with your attitude and conduct.
When an officer tells you to get out of the car you don’t have the
right to stay in the car. I don’t care what you think you have
learned.
{¶11} Appellant maintains the trial court did not find him guilty based on the
evidence presented but, based on the trial court’s comments, appellant’s poor attitude
and disrespect. The comments of the trial court could be read either of two ways: (1)
that appellant’s poor attitude and disrespect prompted the imposition of the maximum
fine, not the finding of guilt, or (2) that once the fine and finding of guilt was imposed,
the trial court found it pertinent to comment on appellant’s disrespectful behavior and
5
lack of compliance with the officer’s orders. Either way, the evidence adduced at trial
was more than sufficient to find him guilty of violating R.C. 4511.39 and, given the
evidence before this court, we find no error in the trial court’s comments regarding
appellant’s disrespectful and abhorrent behavior toward law enforcement and the
judicial process.
{¶12} Appellant’s assignments of error are without merit.
{¶13} The judgment of the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, is
hereby affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.
6