[Cite as Kirtland v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-748.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

CITY OF KIRTLAND, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2018-L-092

 - vs - : 

JERRY L. BROWN, JR., : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Willoughby Municipal Court, Case No. 2018 TRD 02998. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Michael P. Germano, City of Kirtland Prosecutor, 37265 Euclid Avenue, Willoughby, 

OH 44094 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Jerry L. Brown, Jr., pro se, 304 Maplebrook Drive, Painesville, OH 44077 (DefendantAppellant). 

MATT LYNCH, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jerry L. Brown, Jr., appeals his conviction for 

speeding in the Willoughby Municipal Court. For the following reasons, we affirm the 

conviction. 

{¶2} On May 16, 2018, Brown was issued a traffic citation, charging him with 

violating Kirtland Ordinance 434.03 (Maximum Speed Limits; Assured Clear Distance 

Ahead), by operating a vehicle upon a public highway, Chillicothe Road, near Kirtland 

Road at a speed of 50 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. 
 2

{¶3} On May 30, 2018, Brown appeared in Willoughby Municipal Court and a 

plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf. 

{¶4} On June 7, 2018, Brown filed a Motion to Suppress All Evidence and a 

Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State an Offense. On June 12, 2018, Brown 

refiled the Motions with proper service on the City of Kirtland. 

{¶5} On June 14, 2018, a bench trial and hearing on pending Motions was held 

before a magistrate. Brown was found guilty of violating Kirtland Ordinance 434.03 and 

fined fifty dollars. The municipal court adopted the magistrate’s decision on the same 

day. 

{¶6} On June 15, 2018, Brown filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision. 

{¶7} On July 5, 2018, Brown filed a Notice of Appeal. 

{¶8} On July 12, 2018, the municipal court denied Brown’s objection.1

{¶9} On appeal, Brown raises the following assignments of error: 

{¶10} “[1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant by failing 

to take judicial notice of the entire state statute upon which Defendant-Appellant’s 

defense was predicated.” 

{¶11} “[2.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant in 

denying his written and oral motion to suppress all evidence gathered by the arresting 

officer.” 

 

1. Per Appellate Rule 4(C), we construe the Notice of Appeal as filed immediately after the Judgment 

Entry denying the objection. App.R. 4(C) (“[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, 

order, or sentence but before entry of the judgment or order that begins the running of the appeal time 

period is treated as filed immediately after the entry”); In re L.B., 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2012-L-108 and 

2012-L-143, 2013-Ohio-5648, ¶ 10. 
 3

{¶12} “[3.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant in 

overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal where Plaintiff-Appellee failed to establish 

its burden of proof.” 

{¶13} “[4.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant in finding the 

affidavit/Complaint sufficient in law to charge an offense in reference to DefendantAppellant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense.” 

{¶14} “[5.] The trial court erred in finding Defendant-Appellant guilty where there 

was an absence of a posted speed limit sign.” 

{¶15} “[6.] The trial court erred in ruling against Defendant-Appellant in that its 

verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 

{¶16} In the first assignment of error, Brown contends that the magistrate failed 

to take “proper judicial notice * * * of the relevant statutes or definitions to the prima 

facie speed limit where defendant was stopped.” Appellant’s brief at 4. He then 

references subsections (b)(3) and (b)(6) of Kirtland Ordinance 434.03, which provide, 

respectively, that it is “prima facie lawful” to operate a motor vehicle “[t]hirty-five miles 

per hour on all state routes or through highways within the municipality outside business 

districts” and “[f]ifty miles per hour on state routes within the municipality outside urban 

districts unless a lower prima facie speed is established as further provided in this 

section.” 

{¶17} Brown’s argument is not so much that the magistrate failed to notice the 

appropriate subsections, but that the magistrate did not apply them to his case. The 

failure to expressly notice or cite the subsections is not error. In a prosecution for 

speeding, it is not necessary for the trial court to identify a specific statutory subsection 

provided that the defendant has “sufficient information to know the nature and cause of 
 4

the accusation against him and not be misled in the preparation of his defense.” 

Bellville v. Kieffaber, 114 Ohio St.3d 124, 2007-Ohio-3763, 870 N.E.2d 697, ¶ 20, and 

syllabus (“[a] citation for speeding that contains notice of both the prima facie offense 

and the basic facts supporting the charge includes all the necessary elements of the 

offense even if the citation does not also allege that the speed is unreasonable for 

existing conditions”). 

{¶18} In the present case, Brown was duly advised that he was charged with 

operating a vehicle at 50 m.p.h., a speed greater than (“over limits”) the lawful speed 

limitation of 35 m.p.h., a violation of subsection (c) of Kirtland Ordinance 434.03. The 

failure to expressly cite this section is not, as claimed, a deficiency in the “opinion of 

law.” 

{¶19} The first assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶20} In the second assignment of error, Brown claims the magistrate erred by 

not granting his Motion to Suppress All Evidence on the grounds that the police officer 

who issued the citation was under the mistaken belief that his conduct violated the law, 

i.e., that the lawful speed limit was 35 m.p.h. rather than 50 m.p.h. 

{¶21} Assuming, arguendo, that the stop of Brown was illegal, this would not be 

grounds for dismissing the charges or suppressing evidence of the speed at which he 

was travelling. “[I]llegal arrest does not generally require dismissal of criminal charges, 

although it will require the suppression of evidence seized as a result of the arrest.” 

(Citation omitted.) State v. Taylor, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 15, 2015-Ohio-1117, 

¶ 10. The speed at which Brown was travelling was determined by radar prior to the 

stop of his vehicle and the issuance of a citation. 

{¶22} The second assignment of error is without merit. 
 5

{¶23} The third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error may be considered jointly. 

{¶24} In the third assignment of error, Brown claims that he was entitled to a 

judgment of acquittal since the City “failed to prove the existence of a posted speed limit 

within the jurisdiction and failed to prove that no reduction of the prima facie speed limit 

was applied for or granted.” Appellant’s brief at 8-9. In the fifth assignment, Brown 

argues the City failed to prove the existence of a posted speed limit within Kirtland’s 

jurisdiction which complied with the OMUTCD (Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices). In the sixth assignment of error, Brown challenges the weight of the 

evidence. 

{¶25} The record on appeal is inadequate to allow this court to address the 

merits of Brown’s arguments. Brown makes claims regarding what the City failed to 

prove, yet he ordered only a partial transcript of the trial proceedings, specifically, his 

cross-examination of an Officer Petrick. The evidence presented by the City in support 

of the charge against Brown is not in the record before this court, thereby precluding our 

review of the sufficiency as well as the weight of that evidence.2

{¶26} “A party asserting error in the trial court bears the burden to demonstrate 

error by reference to matters made part of the record in the court of appeals.” Hartt v. 

Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3, 7, 615 N.E.2d 617 (1993). “When the alleged error is that the 

trial court judgment was against the weight of the evidence or unsupported by the 

 

2. We note that, on August 31, 2018, the City of Kirtland moved this court to order Brown “to file the 

complete Trial Transcript” since a complete transcript is “relevant to the findings or conclusion if the 

Appellant presents an Assignment of Error on Appeal that the Court’s Decision was against the manifest 

weight of the evidence.” Brown opposed such an order on the grounds that “a full transcript is 

unnecessary since the appeals court can make its own determination without a transcript based on the 

motion to suppress and the issues raised can be found in the partial transcript and based on appellant’s 

motions filed on the docket.” This court denied Kirtland’s Motion on September 26, 2018, with the 

observation: “If appellant has not ordered a sufficient record of proceedings for this court’s review, the 

result of such omission will be reflected in this court’s final opinion.” 
 6

evidence, the appellant must include in the record all portions of the transcript relevant 

to the contested issues.” Id. Stated otherwise: “When portions of the transcript 

necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing 

court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no 

choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp 

v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). 

{¶27} The third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are without merit. 

{¶28} In the fourth assignment of error, Brown argues the traffic citation failed to 

state an offense because “it did not state whether the speed was greater or less than 

reasonable.” Appellant’s brief at 12. 

{¶29} We reject this argument for the same reasons set forth under the first 

assignment of error: a “complaint prepared pursuant to [the Ohio Traffic Rules] simply 

needs to advise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged, in a manner that 

can be readily understood by a person making a reasonable attempt to understand.” 

(Citation omitted.) Kieffaber, 114 Ohio St.3d 124, 2007-Ohio-3763, 870 N.E.2d 697, at 

¶ 19. 

{¶30} The fourth assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶31} For the foregoing reasons, Brown’s conviction for violating Kirtland 

Ordinance 434.03 is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., 

concur.