State v. Bixby, 2017 Ohio 7927

Lori A. Bixby was cited for speeding (53 mph in a 35 mph zone) and convicted in North Hampton Mayor’s Court on June 2, 2016; she was fined, assessed costs, and received two driving-record points.
Bixby paid the fine and costs the same day by check.
Bixby attempted to appeal the Mayor’s Court judgment to the Clark County Municipal Court; the Municipal Court clerk dated a Notice of Appeal 10/18/16.
The Municipal Court dismissed the appeal as untimely under Ohio Rev. Code § 1905.23 because the appeal was not filed within ten days of the June 2 judgment.
Bixby argued she was not timely informed of appellate rights and submitted a September 15, 2016 email indicating she intended to appeal; she also raised factual challenges to the speeding conviction.
The Municipal Court’s dismissal was affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeals, which held lack of timely filing deprived the Municipal Court of jurisdiction; the court rejected the claim that Mayor’s Court was required to advise her of appellate rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bixby)	Held
Timeliness of appeal from Mayor’s Court to Municipal Court	Appeal filed after 10-day statutory period; therefore untimely and deprives municipal court of jurisdiction	Notice of appeal was timely because she attempted to notify via email (Sept. 15, 2016) and filed Notice dated Oct. 18, 2016	Appeal was untimely; dismissal affirmed (appeal to municipal court must be filed within 10 days)
Whether Mayor’s Court was required to inform defendant of appellate rights	No statutory requirement for mayor’s court to advise in petty traffic cases	Mayor’s Court’s failure to advise prevented timely appeal	Court held no duty to inform in this context; Criminal Rule notice requirement applies only to serious offenses
Mootness given voluntary payment of fine	Payment might render appeal moot	Points on driving record create collateral disability preserving justiciability	Court held appeal not moot because points impose collateral disability, but appeal still dismissed for untimeliness
Sufficiency of Mayor’s Court record to rebut presumption of regularity	Municipal record lacked transcript of proceedings	Bixby asserted she was not informed of rights; offered email as evidence	Without a transcript, court presumes regularity; Bixby did not overcome presumption

Fairlawn v. Forney, 82 Ohio App.3d 47 (1992) (untimely appeal from mayor’s court deprives municipal court of jurisdiction)
In re S.J.K., 867 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio 2007) (imposition of points on driving record can create collateral disability that preserves appealability)