[Cite as State v. Obermeyer, 2024-Ohio-4508.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

 Appellee

v. 

FRANK J. OBERMEYER

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 30064

Trial Court Case No. 23TRD04613

(Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on September 13, 2024

. . . . . . . . . . . 

FRANK J. OBERMEYER, Pro Se Appellant

 

JOHN D. EVERETT, Attorney for Appellee

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Frank J. Obermeyer appeals from a judgment of the 

Kettering Municipal Court convicting him of disobeying a traffic control device. For the 

following reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court.
-2-

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On September 21, 2023, Obermeyer was involved in an automobile accident 

with Amy Kettner at the intersection of Woodman Drive and Forrer Boulevard in Kettering, 

Ohio. Obermeyer was issued a traffic citation by the Kettering Police for disobeying a 

traffic control device in violation of Kettering Ordinance Section 414.01.

{¶ 3} A bench trial was held on January 25, 2024. Amy Kettner testified first at 

trial. Tr. 6-15. On the early afternoon of September 21, 2023, she was driving a black 

Honda Civic and heading north on Woodman Drive toward the intersection of Woodman 

and Forrer Boulevard. She intended to turn left onto Forrer. As she approached the 

intersection in the left turn lane, the light turned from green to yellow “fairly quickly.” 

Kettner immediately pulled forward into the intersection, the light turned red, and then 

Kettner began to proceed with her turn, as all the traffic traveling on Woodman from the 

opposite direction was coming to a stop. As she turned left, a white car driven by 

Obermeyer entered the intersection heading southbound on Woodman and hit her car. 

She did not see the car driven by Obermeyer until she had almost finished her turn. 

Kettner’s car was struck on the passenger side. Kettner went to the emergency room to 

have her injuries treated. 

{¶ 4} Kettering Police Officer John McCoy testified next at the trial. Id. at 16-34. 

He had been dispatched to an accident at the intersection of Woodman Drive and Forrer 

Boulevard on September 21, 2023, at approximately 1:44 p.m. Officer McCoy was 

wearing a body camera at that time. One of the other officers already at the scene told 
-3-

Officer McCoy that one eyewitness had stated that “the white car ran the red light.” 

Officer McCoy reviewed the intersection video to assist in his investigation as to who was 

at fault for the accident. Based on his review of the video, he determined “that based off 

the timing of the light cycle that the white car did in fact run the red light.” Id. at 18-19.

{¶ 5} Because of the way the traffic camera was angled, Officer McCoy could not 

see in the video whether the traffic signal for traffic heading south on Woodman was red 

at the time of the crash. But he could see the traffic signal for the traffic heading 

eastbound on Forrer. According to Officer McCoy, the yellow light at this particular 

intersection on Woodman lasts for 4.1 seconds. There is then a delay of one second 

between the north and southbound traffic lights turning red and the east and westbound 

traffic lights turning green. Officer McCoy also explained that the national standard for 

traffic lights requires a yellow light to last four seconds on a 35 mile per hour roadway and 

4.5 seconds on a 40 mile per hour roadway. He explained that the video showed “almost 

instantly at the time of impact is when you see that light cycle to green for eastbound 

traffic.” Id. at 23. The speed limit on Woodman is 35 miles per hour. Based on this 

information and the video, Officer McCoy concluded that Obermeyer “should have had 

about 4 seconds advance notice coming up on that intersection to slow down and stop 

before that red light.” Id. at 24.

{¶ 6} After discussing the evidence with Officer Rustad, who had investigated 

numerous crashes for the Kettering Police Department, Officer McCoy determined that 

Obermeyer ran the red light. He issued Obermeyer a traffic citation. Officer McCoy also 

watched a full light cycle at the intersection to make sure there were no anomalies in the 
-4-

timing of the lights.

{¶ 7} On cross-examination, Officer McCoy testified that he spoke briefly with 

Kettner and Obermeyer but did not speak with the driver of a third vehicle that Obermeyer

struck after the initial collision. He also did not include any of his mathematical 

computations in the traffic crash report that he completed.

{¶ 8} Beverly Schiermeyer testified next. Tr. 34-38. She was on Forrer 

Boulevard in the right-hand lane planning to make a right turn onto Woodman Avenue at 

the time of the collision involving Kettner and Obermeyer. Her light was red, and she 

decided that she would turn right onto Woodman after the white convertible cleared the 

intersection. But that vehicle crashed into her before she could turn right.

{¶ 9} Obermeyer testified last at the trial. Tr. 39-47. He is semi-retired after 

previously working for 20 years as a cargo van driver making deliveries in the United 

States and Canada. According to Obermeyer, he had never had any accidents or traffic 

citations during his years driving the cargo van. Immediately before the accident with 

Kettner, Obermeyer was in his 1992 white Oldsmobile driving in the right-hand lane 

heading south on Woodman Drive. He testified as follows as to what happened when 

he arrived at the intersection of Woodman and Forrer: “As I entered the intersection my 

light was green and within a split second this black car just comes right in front of me and 

prevented me from clearing the intersection and obviously I crashed into her. And she 

was accelerating and actually pushed my car over to the curb lane and Ms. Schiermeyer’s 

car.” Tr. 41. Obermeyer estimated that at the time he entered the intersection, he “was 

probably going 35 maybe a little under at that point.” On cross-examination, Obermeyer 
-5-

stated that the video showed the light on Forrer was still red when he crashed into Kettner 

and then it turned green after the impact. He did not see a yellow or red light on the 

traffic light on Woodman before he entered the intersection. 

{¶ 10} At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Obermeyer guilty of 

disobeying a traffic control device and fined him $25 plus court costs. Obermeyer filed 

a timely notice of appeal.

II. Obermeyer’s Conviction Was Supported by Sufficient Evidence and Was Not 

Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence

{¶ 11} Initially, we note that Obermeyer’s pro se brief does not comply with the 

rules for a proper brief as set forth in App.R. 16(A). His pro se brief fails in almost every 

respect to comply with the requirements governing the content of the brief of an appellant. 

App.R.16 (A)(1)-(7). Briefs filed in this Court, whether by counsel or pro se, must comply 

with App.R. 16.

{¶ 12} Obermeyer’s brief does not include a table of cases, statutes, and other 

authority, in violation of App.R. 16(A)(1) and (2). His brief does not include a statement 

of the issues presented for review, as required by App.R. 16(A)(4), or a brief statement 

of the case, as mandated by App.R. 16(A)(5). Most importantly, Obermeyer has failed 

to set forth any assignments of error or propositions of law and to cite to the record in this 

matter. App.R. 16(A)(3) requires that a brief contain assignments of error presented for 

review on appeal and that they be included in a separate statement.

{¶ 13} Compliance with the appellate rule is mandatory. Obermeyer’s failure to 
-6-

comply with App.R. 16 is tantamount to failing to file a brief in this matter. Pursuant to 

App.R. 12(A)(2), we are not required to address issues that are not argued separately as 

assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A). Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 

60 (9th Dist. 1996). Such a deficiency permits this Court to dismiss Obermeyer’s appeal. 

Erdman v. Williams, 2013-Ohio-980, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.). Notwithstanding the omissions in 

Obermeyer’s brief, in the interests of justice and finality, we elect to review the one implicit

issue raised in his appeal. Id.

{¶ 14} Obermeyer filed a one-page document that contained the following seven 

paragraphs:

There was no eyewitness to this accident. The North/South 

cameras were not working.

The entire findings were hearsay.

The findings were all based on my speed when I entered the 

intersection, which was determined to be 35 MPH. However, as I stated in 

Court, I have had many years of driving with no accidents or violations and 

I have the best insurance rates for safe driving. In fact, I always slow down 

when a light has been green for some time. My speed was 30 MPH or 

less, with my headlights on for safety.

Ms. Kettner stated she was watching the cross walk light when she 

turned right in my path at a high rate of speed, giving me no chance to clear 

the intersection. Using a stopwatch at 30 MPH or less I didn’t have the 

time to clear the intersection.
-7-

Beverly Schiermeyer, who was waiting to turn South at Woodman 

and Forrer stated the East/West light was red prior to the accident. The 

crash occurred before the East/West light changed to green.

I was in the beginning of the intersection on green in the far lane.

I pray you will take this information into consideration in granting my 

appeal.

{¶ 15} In its appellate brief, the City of Kettering construed Obermeyer’s filing as 

raising an argument that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence 

and not supported by sufficient evidence. We agree with the City of Kettering that 

Obermeyer’s one-page filing contains an implied assignment of error arguing that his 

conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was not supported by 

sufficient evidence. Therefore, we will exercise our discretion to resolve this implicit 

assignment of error.

{¶ 16} “The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the 

evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio 

St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. “An appellate court's function when 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine 

the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would 

convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State 

v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “The relevant inquiry 

is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond 
-8-

a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

{¶ 17} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “the court does not engage 

in a determination of the witnesses' credibility.” State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 139, 

(1998), citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. 

Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presented, if believed, was sufficient 

to support the conviction. State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-3311, ¶ 16, citing Thompkins at 

390 (Cook, J., concurring). The verdict will not be disturbed on appeal “unless the 

appellate court finds that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by 

the trier-of-fact.” State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430 (1997), citing Jenks at 273.

{¶ 18} “[A] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the 

evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more 

believable or persuasive.” State v. Wilson, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing State 

v. Hufnagle, 1996 WL 501470 (2d Dist. Sept. 6, 1996). When evaluating whether a 

conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court must review 

the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness 

credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 

“ ‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction 

must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 

20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). The fact that the evidence is subject to 

different interpretations does not render a conviction against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. Wilson at ¶ 14. A judgment of conviction should be reversed as being 

against the manifest weight of the evidence “only in the exceptional case in which the 
-9-

evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” (Citations omitted.) Martin at 175.

{¶ 19} Obermeyer was charged with and convicted of a violation of Kettering 

Ordinance Section 414.01, which provides, in pertinent part: “No pedestrian or driver of 

a vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic control device placed in accordance 

with the provisions of this Traffic Code, unless at the time otherwise directed by a police 

officer.” Based on the record before us, we conclude that Obermeyer’s conviction was 

supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 20} Kettner testified that the light on Woodman turned red while she was waiting 

to turn left in the intersection of Woodman and Forrer. Obermeyer disagreed and stated 

that the light was still green when he entered the same intersection and hit Kettner’s car. 

Officer McCoy testified that he had reviewed the video recording from the perspective of 

traffic heading eastbound on Forrer Boulevard. This recording was introduced at the 

trial, and we have reviewed the recording. According to Officer McCoy, the impact 

between the vehicles driven by Kettner and Obermeyer occurred at the same time the 

light on Forrer turned green. The video recording supported Officer McCoy’s testimony. 

Further, Officer McCoy testified that the light on Woodman would have been red for one 

second before the light on Forrer turned green. Therefore, the light on Woodman had 

turned red one second before Obermeyer struck Kettner’s vehicle. Under the facts of 

this case, this means that Obermeyer failed to obey the traffic signal when he entered the 

intersection at Woodman and Forrer. This evidence was sufficient to support 

Obermeyer’s conviction.

{¶ 21} Ultimately, the trial court credited the testimony of Kettner and Officer 
-10-

McCoy over the testimony of Obermeyer. The video recording submitted at trial 

supported the trial court’s decision to do so. We cannot conclude that this is “the 

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” 

Therefore, Obermeyer’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 22} The sole implied assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 23} Having overruled Obermeyer’s sole implied assignment of error, the 

judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.