Dayton v. Elifritz, 2004 Ohio 455 (Ohio App. 2/6/2004)

• Decision Date: 06 February 2004
• Docket Number: C.A. Case No. 19603.
• Citation: 2004 Ohio 455
• Parties: City of Dayton Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Elifritz Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

2004 Ohio 455

City of Dayton Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Elifritz Defendant-Appellant.

C.A. Case No. 19603.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Montgomery County.

Rendered February 6, 2004.

Criminal Appeal from Dayton Municipal Court, T.C. Case No. 02-CRB-01087.

Patrick J. Bonfield, Director of Law, Atty. Reg. #0015796, Deirdre E. Logan, Chief Prosecutor, Atty. Reg. #0052745, By: Mary E. Welsh, Assistant Prosecutor, Atty. Reg. #0067542, 335 West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul R.F. Princi, Atty. Reg. #0012149, 221 South Market Street, Troy, Ohio 45373, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

BROGAN, J.

{¶1} Robert Elifritz appeals from his conviction and sentence in Dayton Municipal Court on a third-degree misdemeanor charge of failing to abate a public nuisance.

{¶2} Elifritz advances two assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in finding that he owned the property constituting the nuisance. Second, he claims the trial court erred in finding that a "compliance agreement" did not preclude the City of Dayton from prosecuting him.

{¶3} The charge in this case stemmed from a 1995 nuisance abatement order issued with regard to an abandoned foundry located at 1800 McCall Street in Dayton, Ohio. After receiving the order, Elifritz entered into a 1999 compliance agreement with representatives of the City of Dayton. Based on its belief that Elfritz had failed to meet the terms of the agreement, the City commenced the present action on February 1, 2002. The matter proceeded to trial on May 29, 2002, and Elfritz was found guilty. The trial court delayed sentencing several times to allow the parties to pursue a clean-up and demolition plan. Ultimately, Elfritz agreed to transfer the property to the City with an understanding that the City would perform the needed clean up. Thereafter, on September 25, 2002, the trial court imposed a suspended thirty-day jail sentence, ordered Elfritz to serve one year of unsupervised probation, and imposed a fine and court costs. Elfritz paid the fine and court costs on October 22, 2002. He filed his notice of appeal two days later.

{¶4} In light of the foregoing facts, we have no occasion to address the merits of Elfritz's appeal. It is well settled that "where a criminal defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor, voluntarily satisfies the judgment imposed upon him or her for that offense, an appeal from the conviction is moot unless the defendant has offered evidence from which...