{¶ 2} On September 7, 2007, Deputy Tolley, a member of Butler County Sheriff's Office Canine Division, was dispatched to U.S. Route 27 in response to a report that a man was stopping traffic. Upon his arrival, Deputy Tolley saw appellant in a highly intoxicated state, jumping, screaming, cursing, and running in and out of traffic. Appellant's conduct caught the attention of a small group of people who were standing outside their homes as Deputy Tolley arrived. Three of those people reported to Deputy Tolley that if appellant did not stop causing a scene that they were "going to kill him." Believing that appellant's conduct was increasing the volatility of the situation, he warned appellant that he would be arrested if he continued. Appellant continued. Deputy Tolley subsequently arrested appellant and charged him with one count of disorderly conduct.
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty, and a bench trial was held on October 5, 2007. The trial court found appellant guilty of disorderly conduct as a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Appellant was sentenced to 30 days in jail, assessed a fine in the amount of $50.00, 1 and was ordered to pay $60.00 in court costs, and $25.00 in fees. Appellant filed for a motion to stay execution of his sentence pending an appeal. No stay was ordered. Appellant completed a 30-day jail sentence, but has not paid the assessed fines, fees, and costs.
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals his conviction of disorderly conduct as a fourth-degree misdemeanor, advancing one assignment of error. *3
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN IT FOUND HIM GUILTY OF A FOURTH DEGREE MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT RATHER THAN A MINOR MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT."
{¶ 7} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of disorderly conduct as a fourth-degree misdemeanor because the complaint only alleges the elements necessary to charge him with disorderly conduct as a minor misdemeanor. We agree.
{¶ 8} The purpose of a criminal complaint is to inform the accused of the identity and essential facts constituting the charged offense.State v. Broughton (1988),
{¶ 9} In Broughton, this court found a complaint's substance sufficient to inform appellant that she was charged with a violation of R.C.
{¶ 10} Appellant was generally charged with violating R.C.
{¶ 11} "(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:
{¶ 12} "(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons or ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others; * * *.
{¶ 13} "(E)(1) * * * .
{¶ 14} "(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(3) of this section, disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor."
{¶ 15} Disorderly conduct only becomes a fourth-degree misdemeanor when one or more of the following conditions listed in R.C.
{¶ 16} "(a) The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.
{¶ 17} "(b) The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.
{¶ 18} "(c) The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, * * * who is engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.
{¶ 19} "(d) The offense is committed in the presence of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person's duties in an emergency facility."
{¶ 20} In this case, the complaint is a fill-in-the-blank form charging appellant with *5
disorderly conduct in violation of R.C.
{¶ 21} "This day came DEP TOLLEY, BUTLER COUNTY SHERIFF, who being duly sworn by me, the undersigned of the Hamilton Municipal Court, Hamilton, Ohio, says that on or about 09-07-07, The aforesaid, DAVID L DOANS did while voluntarily intoxicated, did in a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engaged in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons or ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others; To Wit: MR. DOANS, WHILE INTOXICATED, WAS FIGHTING ON US 27 AND STOPPING TRAFFIC, Contrary to section
{¶ 22} We find that the complaint does not contain any language to indicate to appellant that he was charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor for violating R.C.
{¶ 23} However, the complaint is not completely devoid of any substance *6
sufficient to provide appellant with proper notice of the charge filed against him. Here, the complaint contains a general charge notifying appellant of a violation of R.C.
{¶ 24} At trial, the state called the only witness, Deputy Tolley, to testify about the events of September 7, 2007. Deputy Tolley testified that he responded to a call alleging that a man was stopping traffic on U.S. Route 27. Upon his arrival, he saw appellant in a highly intoxicated state, jumping, screaming, cursing, and running in and out of heavy traffic. There were eight to ten people standing outside their homes watching the appellant when he arrived. Three of those individuals reported to that they were so disturbed by appellant's conduct that they were "going to kill him." Deputy Tolley testified that he believed that appellant's actions were increasing the volatility of the situation, which led to appellant's arrest.
{¶ 25} The evidence presented at trial is sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding of guilt of disorderly conduct under R.C.
{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed as modified.
WALSH, P.J. and YOUNG, J., concur.