IN THE COURT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO
CITY
OF TROTWOOD
Plaintiff
Appellee,
:
Appellate Case No. C18207
: T.C. Case
No. 99-TRD-4409
vs.
:
STEVEN 0.
SELZ,
Defendant
Appellant.
:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF
OF THE APPELLEE
____________________________________________________________________________________________
STEVEN M.
MAGAS (0009131)
Bison
Jacobson Law Office
3536 Edwards
Road, Suite 201
Cincinnati,
OH 45208
(513) 533-3030
Attorney for
Defendant Appellant
DAVID H. FUCHSMAN (0018407)
120 West Second Street
Suite 2000, Liberty Tower
Dayton, Ohio 45402
(937) 226-1996
Attorney for Plaintiff Appellee,
City of
Trotwood
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
i
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES
..ii
STATEMENT OF
THE FACTS AND THE CASE
..1
ARGUMENT
.2
STATES
RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
2
THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD VIOLATED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE SECTION 333.04(A).
CONCLUSION
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
..4
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES
Statutory
Authority
Page
City
of Trotwood Municipal Ordinance Section 333.04(A)
..2
STATEMENT OF
THE FACTS AND THE CASE
Appellee,
City of Trotwood, would accept Appellant's recitation as to the statement of
the facts and the procedural posture of the case.
ARGUMENT
STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR:
THE TRIAL
COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD VIOLATED, AS A MATTER OF LAW,
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE SECTION 333.04(A).
In Appellant's very interesting
brief, he unfortunately glosses over the testimony of Officer Vance who stated,
looked up Salem, Mr. Selz (the Defendant), was driving in the middle of the
traffic lane causing cars to stop and have to go over to the other lane to
get around him." (Emphasis
added).
It is respectfully submitted that the
lower court, in finding the Defendant/Appellant guilty, 0
accepted
the Officer's observations as true, thereby rejecting the Defendant/Appellant's
allegations that he was driving as near to the right side of the roadway as
practicable.
The lower court, therefore,
correctly found that by going at such a slow speed, coupled with driving in the
middle of the lane rather than to the right, that the cars behind
Defendant/Appellant were forced to stop, thereby unlawfully impeding traffic.
For argument purposes only, the
City would concede that a different case might be presented to this Court
if the testimony by the Officer, or the facts as found by the lower court, were
that the Defendant/Appellant was driving as far right in the lane as
practicable. However, such is such
is not
the case, and therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the lower court's
decision should be upheld.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this Court should affirm
Appellant's conviction for the reasons stated above.
Respectfully
submitted,
DAVID
H. FUCHSMAN (00 18407)
120
West Second Street
Suite
2000, Liberty Tower
Dayton,
Ohio 45402
(937)
226-1996
Attorney
for Plaintiff Appellee