City of Cleveland v. Bardwell
95 N.E.3d 794
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Sept. 4, 2016, Trooper Jovito Cirilo stopped Brian Bardwell on I‑90 and cited him for speeding, noting 79 mph in a 60 mph zone on the Uniform Traffic Ticket (R.C. 4511.21(D)(5)).
- Bardwell pleaded not guilty at a brief arraignment on Sept. 21, 2016; the transcript does not show the court advised him of his rights, read the complaint, or provided a copy as required by Traf.R. 8.
- The case proceeded to trial on Sept. 26, 2016; at the start Bardwell said he had not received the video advisement and had not been given a copy of the complaint.
- The trial judge then read Bardwell his rights, provided a copy of the complaint, and proceeded immediately to trial after denying Bardwell’s request for a continuance under Traf.R. 10(F).
- The trial court found Bardwell guilty and sentenced him, but the journal entries incorrectly listed the offense as R.C. 4511.21(D)(4) (rural speed limit) instead of the charged R.C. 4511.21(D)(5).
- On appeal Bardwell raised two assignments: (1) insufficiency of evidence for a D(4) conviction, and (2) violation of Traf.R. 8 and 10 (procedural due process). The court found the Traf.R. error dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a conviction under R.C. 4511.21(D)(4) (rural speed) | City: conviction should be sustained because the record shows speeding in excess of posted limit (D(5) was the charged offense) | Bardwell: judgment lists D(4); city failed to prove rural‑highway element for D(4) | Court: ministerial transcription error — record shows D(5) was charged and tried; overruled sufficiency challenge |
| Whether the court violated Traf.R. 8 and 10 by proceeding to trial without proper arraignment and without granting a continuance | City: trial proceeded and the judge later advised Bardwell of rights; evidence supported conviction | Bardwell: arraignment did not comply with Traf.R. 8; after being advised at trial he was entitled to a continuance under Traf.R. 10(F) before proceeding | Court: Traf.R. 10(F) violated — judge’s advisement at trial effectively was first arraignment and the court should have continued the trial; conviction vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (explains sufficiency standard for reviewing criminal convictions)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sets the "viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution" test for sufficiency)