State v. Desmarais

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals held that a traffic citation generally charging a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j), supplemented by a bill of particulars, sufficiently invoked the municipal court's jurisdiction. The court determined that the trial court's reference to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(II) was a clerical error and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry identifying the conviction as R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II). The court affirmed the OVI controlled-substance conviction, dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning reasonable control, and remanded the matter.

Holdings

1. A misdemeanor complaint generally citing R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j) is not defective and does not deprive a municipal court of subject-matter jurisdiction when the defendant received notice of the alleged violation through the charging instrument and a bill of particulars and was not prejudiced by the absence of a specific statutory subdivision.
2. The municipal court did not convict Desmarais of the cocaine offense identified by the erroneous handwritten reference to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(ii); the reference was a clerical error, and the record must be corrected nunc pro tunc to reflect conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II).
3. Sufficient evidence supported Desmarais's conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II) because the stipulated toxicology report established that his urine contained more than the statutory threshold of marijuana metabolite.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a traffic citation generally charging a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j), without identifying a specific subdivision, was sufficient to invoke the municipal court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the municipal court convicted Desmarais of an uncharged cocaine offense by referring in its handwritten judgment entry to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(II), rather than the marijuana-metabolite subdivision.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported Desmarais's conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II).
4. Whether the portion of the appeal challenging the uncontested reasonable-control conviction should be dismissed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded