State v. Coyle
| Decision Date | 25 January 1984 |
| Parties | , 14 O.B.R. 203 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. COYLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the accused is charged with two offenses, only one of which is accompanied by a right to a jury trial, and that particular charge is subsequently nolled following a request by the accused for a jury trial, the defendant's right to a jury trial is thereby extinguished and it is not error for the court to fail to secure a written waiver of jury before proceeding.
2. Where the sentence imposed by the trial court is within the limits prescribed by statute, the court of appeals cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing too severe a sentence.
Peggy J. Schmitz, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Christopher Brown, Wadsworth, for appellant.
Defendant-appellee Brian G. Coyle was convicted of reckless operation of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 4511.20 and was fined $100 and his license was suspended for six months. We affirm.
Coyle was cited for reckless operation and driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19 as a result of a collision in which he was involved. Coyle was driving his car on Main Street in Rittman when he crossed the center line and struck an oncoming car. Coyle was taken to the hospital where he was treated for minor injuries and then released. His passenger suffered minor injuries.
Coyle received appointed counsel, pleaded not guilty to both charges and requested a jury trial. The prosecution nolled the charge of driving under the influence and Coyle's appointed attorney was dismissed. Coyle proceeded to a trial before the court on the charge of reckless operation. The trial judge found him guilty of reckless operation, imposed a $100 fine and ordered that Coyle's license be suspended for six months.
At the time Coyle filed his request for a jury trial he was charged with driving under the influence, for which the penalty is a fine in excess of $100 and a possible jail term. At the time this charge was nolled any right to a jury trial which was attached to it was also extinguished. In order for any right to a jury to exist at the time of trial, such right must be independent of the nolled charge and be derived solely from the reckless operation charge. We find that no independent right exists with respect to that charge in this situation.
A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege which is granted by the state subject to limitations which may be imposed. Coyle's license was suspended pursuant to R.C. 4507.34 which provides:
"Whenever a person is found guilty under the laws of this state or any ordinance of any political subdivision thereof, of operating a motor vehicle in violation of such laws or ordinances, relating to reckless operation, the trial court of any court of record may, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law, suspend for any period of time or revoke the license to drive of any person so convicted or pleading guilty to such offenses for such period as it determines, not to exceed one year."
The court notes that the suspension of a license under R.C. 4507.34 is one of the limitations imposed. The court in State v. Newkirk (1968), 21 Ohio App.2d 160, 164-165, 255 N.E.2d 851 , in discussing the difference between a criminal penalty and a sanction imposed with regard to the driver's license, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Michael v. Haley
... ... "review a trial court's exercise of discretion in ... sentencing when the sentence is authorized by statute and is ... within the statutory limits." State v. Hill ... (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 29, 635 N.E.2d 1248, 1252; ... State v. Coyle (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 14 OBR ... 203, 470 N.E.2d 457, paragraph two of the syllabus; State ... v. Crouse (1987), 39 Ohio App.3d 18, 20, 528 N.E.2d ... 1283, 1286. Haley does not contend that the sentences imposed ... were not within the statutory limits. As no abuse ... ...
-
State v. Maurice L. Pleasant
... ... sentencing so long as the sentence imposed is within the ... statutory limit and the mandated statutory criteria in R.C ... 2929.12 are considered. State v. Tutt (1988), 44 ... Ohio App.3d 138, 139, 541 N.E.2d 1090, 1091; State v ... Coyle (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 186, 470 N.E.2d 457, ... 459; Longo, supra , at 141.11 ... Moreover, ... in State v. Taylor (1992), 76 Ohio App.3d 835, 839, ... 603 N.E.2d 401, 404, the court wrote: ... "We have held that where a criminal sentence is within ... ...
-
City of Spokane v. Port
...692 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App.1985); Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Schaejbe, 687 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.1985); State v. Coyle, 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 470 N.E.2d 457, 458 (1984); Hanson v. State, 673 P.2d 657, 658 (Wyo.1983); Mackler v. Alexis, 130 Cal.App.3d 44, 181 Cal.Rptr. 613, 622-23 (1982); S......
-
Akron v. Wendell
...This court generally refuses to set aside sentences rendered by a trial court within statutory guidelines. State v. Coyle (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 14 OBR 203, 470 N.E.2d 457; State v. Cassidy (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 100, 21 OBR 107, 487 N.E.2d 322; see, also, Toledo v. Reasonover (1965), ......