Bay Village v. Moore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Bay Village v. Moore, 2004-Ohio-4348.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 84077 CITY OF BAY VILLAGE, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LOUIS L. MOORE, Defendant-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION AUGUST 19, 2004 : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Rocky River Municipal Court Case No. 03 TRC 18378 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED AS MOOT DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: GARY A. HOTZ 24461 Detroit Road-Suite 209 Westlake, Ohio 44145 For Defendant-Appellant: JAKE HILDEBRAND HILDEBRAND, WILLIAMS & FARRELL 21430 Lorain Road Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 2 WILLIAM T. SCHILL Goodwin, Bryan & Schill LLP 22050 Mastick Road Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 ANNE L. KILBANE, P.J. {¶1} Louis Moore appeals from a judgment of Rocky River Municipal Court Judge Maureen A. Gravens, who found him guilty of driving under the influence.1 He claims that the traffic stop which led to his arrest was made without reasonable suspicion and, therefore, that the judge erred when she denied his motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication. We dismiss the appeal as moot, because Moore voluntarily satisfied his sentence. {¶2} In August of 2003 then thirty-two-year-old Moore was stopped while driving on Lake Road in Bay Village. He was arrested and charged with weaving,2 and driving under the influence.3 He submitted to a breath test at the police station, which revealed his blood alcohol content to be 0.121%. {¶3} He pleaded not guilty to the offenses and filed a motion to suppress, which claimed that the traffic stop violated his state and federal constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, Officer John L. Guzman 1 Bay Village Cod. Ord. 333.01. 2 Bay Village Cod. Ord. 331.34(B), 3 R.C. 4511.19. 3 testified that he stopped Moore because his car appeared to be weaving when making required lane shifts through a construction zone. Moore argued that the evidence did not support a traffic stop because Officer Guzman admitted that his large SUV did not cross the center line, that the road was rough and the lanes in the construction zone were narrower than usual. {¶4} The judge denied Moore s motion to suppress, the weaving charge was nolled, and he pleaded no contest to an amended charge of driving under the influence in violation of Bay Village Cod. Ord. 333.01, a first degree misdemeanor. The judge imposed a $350 fine and a 180 day license suspension, although she credited Moore with 116 days that he had already incurred under an administrative license suspension. Moore submits two assignments of error, which are included in an appendix to this opinion. {¶5} We need not address either assignment of error, however, because the record shows that Moore did not request a stay of the sentence, and suspension. sentence, he has paid the fine and served his license When a defendant voluntarily satisfies a misdemeanor an appeal from the conviction is moot unless the defendant has offered evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he or she will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights stemming from that conviction. 4 4 This rule is no State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226, 1994-Ohio-109, 643 N.E.2d 109, citing State v. Berndt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 29 OBR 173, 504 N.E.2d 712; 4 less applicable to convictions for driving under the influence than it is for other misdemeanors,5 and Moore has failed to argue or present evidence that the conviction subjects him to a collateral disability sufficient to allow this appeal. Moreover, we note that the Berndt court rejected a claim that the possible enhancement of a future offense was a qualifying collateral disability, because no such disability will exist if [the defendant] remains within the confines of the law. 6 Therefore, the appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. APPENDIX ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶6} I. THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANT, LOUIS MOORE[,] DO NOT CONSTITUTE WEAVING UNDER THE STATUTE[.] {¶7} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT BASED IT S [SIC] DECISION ON EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER[.] 5 Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d at 3-4. 6 Id. at 4-5. 5 It is ordered that appellee shall recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Rocky River Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN DYKE, J., COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., And CONCUR 6 ANNE L. KILBANE PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court s decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc. App.R.22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A) is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court s decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court s announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.