272 N.E.2d 915 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1971
This is an appeal from the Sylvania Municipal Court. Defendant was charged with the violation of R. C.
The defendant, in this appeal, challenges the authority of the court to suspend his driver's license and claims that the judgment is contrary to law. Defendant also argues surprise and complains that the court erred in not apprising the accused of the offense for which he was found guilty.
The applicable part of R. C.
"No person shall drive or move, or cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person."
R. C.
"Whenever a person is found guilty under the laws of this state or any ordinance of any political subdivision thereof, of operating a motor vehicle in violation of such laws or ordinances, relating to reckless operation, the trial court of any court of record may, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law, suspend for any period of time or revoke the license to drive of any person so convicted or pleading guilty to such offenses for such period as it determines, not to exceed one year."
R. C.
We have found no case which relates R. C.
The case of State v. Newkirk,
In the instant case, the defendant operated his 1956 Ford pick-up truck at 6:05 p. m., on December 27 on wet pavement without windshield wipers, with the right headlight out. The front fender was held on by a chain and, among other deficiencies, the rear fenders were missing. He admitted by his plea of guilty that he drove a vehicle in such an unsafe condition as to endanger any person or, in effect, without due regard (see Akron v. Willingham,
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and WILEY, JJ., concur.