State v. Connie M. Parrish

• Decision Date: 28 May 1987
• Docket Number: 87-LW-1820,86AP-1039
• Parties: State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Connie M. Parrish, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Connie M. Parrish, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86AP-1039.

87-LW-1820 (10th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District Franklin.

May 28, 1987

APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court.

RONALD J. O'BRIEN, City Attorney, JAMES J. FAIS and DAVID E TINGLEY, for appellee.

CONNIE M. PARRISH, pro se.

OPINION

REILLY Judge.

Defendant appeals from a decision of the Franklin County Municipal Court finding her guilty of disorderly conduct, in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), a minor misdemeanor.

This cause involves a forcible entry and detainer action. The referee of the Franklin County Municipal Court was presiding and called defendant's case. Defendant approached the bench. The referee, not seeing the landlord's attorney stated to defendant that she would recall the case in a few minutes. The referee testified she believed that the attorney was in the hall talking with other clients or negotiating cases and would return shortly.

Defendant moved that her case be dismissed. The referee responded that the motion would be ruled upon later in the morning and asked defendant to be seated. Defendant refused despite repeated requests by the referee and bailiff. Consequently, the referee asked the bailiff to call a deputy sheriff. During the twenty-five minutes prior to the arrival of the deputy, defendant positioned herself about four feet from the bench and stared at the referee.

Aporoximately seven more cases were called during that time and the parties had to stand to either side of her. She interrupted one case, speaking very loudly and forcefully, and disturbed one of the parties. When the deputy sheriff arrived, the referee and bailiff again asked that defendant be seated. Upon the referee's request, the deputy removed defendant from the courtroom and placed her in a holding cell.

Defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on October 2, 1986 to a disorderly conduct charge. She demanded a jury trial which was denied because there is no right to a jury trial in a minor misdemeanor case. Defendant did not waive her right to a speedy trial and a trial date was scheduled.

On October 17, 1986, the trial judge overruled defendant's motion for a jury trial on the same grounds and recused himself from the case. He left all other motions pending. Subsequently, all the other judges of the court also recused themselves from the case, which was then assigned to a visiting judge.

The case proceeded to trial. The trial court overruled all of defendant's pretrial motions. The state presented the testimony of the referee and the bailiff and then rested its case. Defendant chose not to testify and did not call any witnesses. Following closing arguments, the court found defendant guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), and stayed the $100 fine pending appeal.

Thereafter, the court overruled defendant's post-trial motion requesting that the court appoint counsel for purposes of this appeal. The court held that there is no such right involving a minor misdemeanor which carries no penalty of incarceration. Following a hearing to establish whether defendant was indigent, the trial court granted defendant's motion requesting that a free transcript be provided.

Defendant timely appeals and advances the following assignments of error:

"1.) Failure for defendant to be confronted by accuser. Officer Garren, badge #66, who filed the complaint against defendant, was not present nor did he testify. See page 36 and 44 of 10-29-86 proceedings.

"2.) Defendant denied jury trial after demanding same orally and in writing.

"3.) Defendant denied right to counsel, after requesting leave to obtain same.

"4.) Defendant denied right to counsel for this appeal after being adjudged indigent.

"5.) Defendant denied right to secure witnesses in her defense after requesting same.

"6.) Defendant generally denied due process in violation of 1st and 14th Amendment guarantees of same.'

Defendant's assignments of error, which except for a cursory single sentence under the first assignment of error, are only supported by the sentence: "Evidence of same in record on file with this court.' Despite such noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, this court is able to address the merits of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error.

As to the first assignment of error, defendant advances the unsupported contention that her Sixth Amendment right of confrontation has been violated because the officer who filed the disorderly conduct complaint did not testify. Defendant has not submitted any argument in support of this position. Moreover, defendant has not presented any reasons why the testimony of the officer might be material or in her favor. Further, defendant did not attempt to subpoena the officer to testify. In any event, the state had no obligation to call the officer to testify in order to prove its case.

Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant's second assignment of error is not well-taken since she has no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for a minor misdemeanor which is punishable only by a fine and which does not include a possibility of imprisonment. See Baldwin v. New York (1970), 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886; Bloom v. Illinois, (1968), 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477. When imprisonment is not a part of the punishment, the constitutional right to a jury trial does not exist. Cochran v. State (1922), 105 Ohio St. 541; Hoffrichter v. State (1921), 102 Ohio St. 65; State v. Borham (1905), 72 Ohio St. 358; and Inwood v. State (1884), 42 Ohio St. 186.

Defendant was charged with violating R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), which is a minor misdemeanor for a first time offender. The maximum penalty for such a violation is a fine not to exceed $100. Hence, defendant has no statutory right to a trial by jury under R.C. 2945.17.

Defendant's second...