State ex rel. Moraites v. Gorman, 74-815
| Decision Date | 30 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-815,74-815 |
| Citation | 326 N.E.2d 868,42 Ohio St.2d 175 |
| Parties | , 71 O.O.2d 172 The STATE ex rel. MORAITES, Appellee, v. GORMAN, Judge, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Luebbers, City Solicitor, Paul J. Gorman, Cleveland, and John F. Peyton, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellee.
Ralph F. Crisci, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Ohio's new Criminal Code became effective on January 1, 1974, and hence its provisions pertaining to violations of R.C. 4511.19 were applicable to Ms. Bolan's case. One such provision is R.C. 4511.99(A), which states: (Emphasis added). Appellee contends that R.C. 4511.99(A) unequivocally commands a trial judge to impose and execute a minimum sentence of three days' incarceration upon any person convicted of driving while intoxicated. This court agrees.
Appellant argues that R.C. 4511.99(A) does not prohibit a trial judge from suspending actual confinement of a person convicted of violating R.C. 4511.19, and placing that person on probation. This argument is grounded on the premise that the word "imprisonment," as used in R.C. 4511.99(A), denotes not only physical confinement in jail, but also a probationary period or both.
Appellant's premise is faulty. R.C. 1.05 defines the word "imprisoned": "As used in the Revised Code, unless the context otherwise requires, 'imprisoned' means imprisoned in a county or municipal jail or workhouse if the offense is a misdemeanor, and imprisoned in a state penal or reformatory institution if the offense is a felony, or if imprisonment in a state penal or reformatory institution is order pursuant to division (E)(3) of section 2929.41 of the Revised Code." NOthing in the language of R.C. 4511.19 and R.C. 4511.99(A) indicates that this definition is not applicable to the mandatory three days' imprisonment specified by R.C. 4511.99(A). 1
The intent of the General Assembly contained in R.C. 4511.99(A) is unmistakably clear: A person convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs must serve at least three days in jail. A mandatory minimum jail sentence for such an offense is one of the General Assembly's responses to what many experts consider a leading cause of traffic accidents. 2
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Charles W. Jodrey
... ... court, among many others. State, ex rel. Moraites, v ... Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 175, 326 N.E.2d ... ...
-
State v. Air Clean Damper Co.
...other examples of cases finding that the legislature used language making sentences mandatory, see State, ex rel. Moraites, v. Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 175, 71 O.O.2d 172, 326 N.E.2d 868; State v. Bonello (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 365, 3 OBR 428, 445 N.E.2d 667; Summers, supra; State v. Jon......
-
State ex rel. Leis v. Outcalt, 79-1231
...to this court that an appeal from this order is now pending in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.3 State, ex rel. Moraites v. Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 175, 326 N.E.2d 868, was decided prior to the effective date of present R.C. ...
-
State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Calandra, 79-1242
...of a legal duty by appellee and thus supports the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Appellant relies on State ex rel. Moraites v. Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 175, 326 N.E.2d 868, wherein the trial court simply ignored the mandatory prison sentence. The case at bar is quite different, in that......