598 N.E.2d 1294 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1991
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which denied a petition to reinstate the driving privileges of appellant.
Because we find that the procedure whereby appellant's operator's license was suspended was not in conformity with statutory requirements, we reverse.
Appellant, Jamie T. Helmeci, a student at Woodmore High School, received notice from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") that his motor vehicle operator's license was being suspended pursuant to R.C.
On November 27, 1990, appellant filed a petition in the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, requesting that his driving privileges be restored. Appellant claimed that he had not been suspended or expelled from school for alcohol or drug use or possession, that he had not received proper notice, and that R.C.
A hearing was held on December 18, 1990. No transcript of that proceeding was included in the record on appeal.
On December 21, 1990, the juvenile court denied appellant's petition and found, among other things, that "the notification from the Superintendent to the Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles was not made in error." This timely appeal of that judgment followed.
Appellant cites a single assignment of error:
"The driver's license suspension provided by O.R.C. Section
At the outset we would note that appellee, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, has failed to file a brief or otherwise appear here or in the trial court. Accordingly, the statement of facts of appellant will be accepted as correct pursuant to App.R. 18(C).Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Potts (1986),
Appellant asserts that a county school superintendent lacks the statutory authority, under R.C.
The question before this court is whether the governing sections of the Ohio Revised Code empower a county superintendent of schools to send notification of a suspension or expulsion of a student in a school system within that county to the BMV.
R.C.
"Whenever a pupil is suspended or expelled from school pursuant to section
R.C.
R.C.
"(A) The superintendent of schools of a city, exemptedvillage, or a local school district, or the principal of a public school may suspend a pupil from school * * *.
"(B) The superintendent of schools of a city, exemptedvillage, or local school district may expel a pupil from school * * *." (Emphasis added.)
From the language of the statute, it is clear that the authority to suspend or expel a public school pupil is vested solely in the superintendent of the school district or the principal of the school which the pupil attends. A county school district is an entity separate from a local school district. R.C.
A more interesting and critical question is whether the sending of the suspension notice by the wrong superintendent is reversible error. If the sending of the notice is a perfunctory ministerial function then surely it is not. However, R.C.
Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is well taken.
On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has not been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of notifying the Bureau of Motor Vehicles of this court's decision. It is ordered that appellee pay the court costs of this appeal.
Judgment reversed.
ABOOD, J., concurs.
MELVIN L. RESNICK, J., dissents.
Dissenting Opinion
Finding no ambiguity in R.C.