City of Akron v. Purnell Anderson, 85-LW-3826
| Decision Date | 17 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | 85-LW-3826,11845 |
| Parties | CITY OF AKRON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PURNELL ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. C.A. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE NO. 84 TRD 14094.
GARY M ROSEN, City Prosecutor, Ocasek Government Office Bldg., 161 S. High St., Akron, OH 44308 for Plaintiff.
DAVID L. ZEHNDER, Attorney at Law, 1013 Centran Bldg., Akron, OH 44308 for Defendant.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Appellant, Purnell Anderson appeals his convictions in the Akron Municipal Court for willfully fleeing a police officer in violation of Akron City Code Section 404.01, and for driving without an operator's license in violation of Akron City Code Section 436.01. We affirm.
While on undercover duty to watch for liquor sales violations, Officer Ron Davis of the Akron Police Department testified that he observed Anderson and a companion exit a drive-through beverage store in a car driven by Anderson. Davis saw the passenger drinking from a container in a brown paper bag, but could not see what kind of a container it was or what it contained.
Davis further testified that he suspected that the passenger was underage as well as consuming alcohol. He began to follow Anderson's car. When Anderson's car was stopped in traffic, Davis pulled up alongside on the driver's side. Davis honked his horn at Anderson, displayed his badge, and told him not to leave. Davis then pulled his car over to the side of the road and walked out into the street to talk to Anderson on the driver's side of the car. Davis once again displayed his badge and identified himself. Davis asked Anderson whose car he was driving. Anderson replied that his uncle had just bought it for him. Davis then demanded that Anderson show him his drivers license. Anderson's reply to this question is uncertain. Davis testified that he either said that he did not have one or did not have it with him. Davis then ordered Anderson to pull over to the side of the road. Anderson did not comply with this command, and sped off while Davis called to him to stop.
After being chased several blocks and running a stop sign, Anderson abandoned his car and both he and the passenger fled on foot. Anderson was later apprehended at his aunt and uncle's house. The registration of the car was traced to that address. Anderson was arrested and charged with willfully fleeing a police officer, driving without a driver's license, and running a stop sign. Anderson was convicted®1¯ on all three counts and sentenced.
Footnote 1 . The stop sign conviction is not involved in this appeal.
"The trial court erred and denied appellant procedural due process of law in finding defendant guilty of driving without an operator's license when the evidence at trial failed to prove this offense beyond a reasonable doubt."
The city's theory at trial was that Anderson did not have a license to drive because of his failure to display one when it was demanded, and his statement to the officer that he did not have one or did not have it with him. R.C. 4507.35 provides:
Anderson offered no evidence at trial to show that he did in fact have a driver's license.
Anderson's failure to display a license when demanded coupled with his failure to prove that he had one at trial provides sufficient evidence to convict him for driving without a driver's license in violation of Akron City Code Section 436.01. See State v. Green (1984), 13 Ohio Misc. 2d 14.
"The trial court erred and denied appellant procedural due process of law in finding defendant guilty of willfully fleeing a police officer when the evidence at trial failed to prove this offense beyond a reasonable doubt."
As part of his second assignment of error, Anderson raises three issues dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence misapplication of the ordinance involved, and the legality of the attempted stop. These issues will be addressed separately in the order in which they were presented.
In arguing that the city introduced insufficient evidence to convict him of willfully fleeing, Anderson claims that the city failed to prove that he received a visible or audible signal to stop. Akron City Code Section 404.01(d). At trial, Officer Davis testified that he was talking to Anderson through the driver's window of Anderson's car and that when Anderson drove off he yelled to him to stop. This testimony if believed is sufficient to establish that Anderson received an audible signal to stop.
Anderson next contends that Akron City Code Section 404.01 is not applicable because this is not a traffic situation, and Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial