Cleveland v. Jordan
2016 Ohio 4957
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Tiffany Jordan drove a pickup into an active railyard, struck a rail, and became stuck on railroad tracks; railroad security called police.
- Officers found Jordan alone in the driver’s seat, smelled alcohol, and observed her stagger; she was belligerent and refused field sobriety tests and a breath test.
- Jordan was charged on a uniform traffic ticket with two OVI counts under Cleveland Codified Ordinances: one referencing a prohibited BAC (433.01A1) (with “refused” checked) and one listing OVI-observation (433.01).
- The municipal court found Jordan guilty of one OVI count and not guilty of the other; the journal entry reflected guilt for OVI (433.01) and not guilty on the BAC/observation count (433.01A1).
- Jordan appealed, raising four errors limited to the OVI conviction: (1) the court convicted her of a non-existent “refusal” offense; (2) denial of Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal for insufficient evidence of operation; (3) verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to suppress and for calling Jordan to testify.
- The majority affirmed the conviction; one judge dissented, arguing the journal entry conflicted with the oral pronouncement and remand for clarification was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court convicted Jordan of a non-existent "refusal" OVI offense | The ticket’s “refused” notation was a benign notation; journal entry shows conviction for OVI (433.01) | The court verbally found her guilty of OVI by refusal — which does not exist in the city code — creating an inconsistent verdict | Court: No reversible error; journal entry controls and shows conviction for OVI, not a "refusal" offense |
| Whether Crim.R. 29 motion should have been granted for insufficiency of evidence that Jordan operated the vehicle | Circumstantial evidence (Jordan alone in driver’s seat, vehicle stuck on tracks, no one else present) suffices to prove operation | No direct eyewitness of operation; evidence insufficient | Court: Denial proper — reasonable minds could find element proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Officers’ testimony about odor, staggering, belligerence, and hazardous driving supports OVI conviction | Insufficient proof of intoxication and improperly convicted of a refusal-related offense | Court: Not against manifest weight; evidence supported intoxication and operation; refusal theory not applied in journal entry |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress and for calling Jordan | Investigation and observations supported probable cause; calling defendant was legitimate strategy | Counsel should have moved to suppress and should not have called Jordan to testify | Court: No ineffective assistance — suppression motion likely would have failed; calling Jordan was trial strategy without shown prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (court speaks through its journal)
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (standard for grant of Crim.R. 29 motion)
- State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (definition and equivalence of circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)