[Cite as Defiance v. Ford, 2014-Ohio-5627.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DEFIANCE COUNTY 

 

CITY OF DEFIANCE, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 4-14-07 

 v. 

WILLIAM E. FORD, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Defiance Municipal Court 

Trial Court No. TRD 1400528 A&B 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: December 22, 2014 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Ian A. Weber for Appellant 

David A. Land for Appellee 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-2- 

SHAW, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant William E. Ford (“Ford”) appeals the July 8, 

2014 judgment of the Defiance Municipal Court sentencing Ford to pay a $500 

fine and court costs, with $400 of the fine suspended, after Ford was found guilty 

in a bench trial of Failure to Control in violation of Defiance City Ordinance No. 

331.34, a minor misdemeanor, and Failure to Reinstate in violation of Defiance 

City Ordinance 335.073, an unclassified misdemeanor. 

{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. On February 20, 

2014, Ford was involved in a traffic accident in the city of Defiance. As a result 

of the accident, Ford was cited for Failure to Control in violation of Defiance City 

Ordinance No. 331.34, a minor misdemeanor, and Failure to Reinstate his license 

in violation of Defiance City Ordinance 335.073, an unclassified misdemeanor. 

On February 24, 2014, Ford was arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges. 

{¶3} A pretrial hearing was held March 11, 2014, and a second pretrial 

hearing was scheduled for April 22, 2014, but Ford requested that the hearing be 

continued due to a scheduling conflict. The second pretrial hearing was thus held 

April 24, 2014. Following the second pretrial hearing, the case was set for a 

change of plea hearing on June 25, 2014. 

{¶4} On June 25, 2014, Ford failed to appear for his scheduled change of 

plea hearing and a bench warrant was issued. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-3- 

{¶5} On June 27, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on whether Ford 

should be found in contempt and the court ultimately did not hold Ford in 

contempt. In addition, Ford informed the court in writing that he no longer wished 

to change his plea, so the matter was set for trial on July 7, 2014. The court 

explicitly notified Ford at that time that if he wished to get an attorney, he needed 

to notify the attorney that the trial would proceed on July 7, 2014 and Ford 

indicated that he understood. 

{¶6} On July 1, 2014, an attorney filed an entry of appearance as Ford’s 

counsel. (Doc. 17). The attorney also filed a request for discovery, and a motion 

to continue the trial date. (Docs. 20, 18). The motion to continue stated that the 

attorney had previously scheduled hearings on July 7, 2014, and that as the 

attorney was recently retained, he would not be prepared for trial at the currently 

scheduled date and time. (Doc. 18). 

{¶7} On July 1, 2014, the trial court filed an entry denying Ford’s 

attorney’s request for a continuance. (Doc. 19). 

{¶8} On July 7, 2014, Ford’s attorney wrote a letter to the court requesting 

that the court reconsider its decision on Ford’s motion to continue. (Doc. 26). 

Ford’s attorney stated that he would be in Henry County Juvenile Court at the date 

and time of the scheduled trial. (Id.) Ford’s attorney also attached the notice of 

his appearance to the letter. (Id.) In addition, Ford’s attorney contended that even 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-4- 

if he could attend the trial, he would not be prepared as he had not received 

discovery from the City. (Id.) 

{¶9} On July 7, 2014, the case proceeded to trial. The trial court began by 

giving a procedural history of the case and then mentioned Ford’s attorney’s letter 

requesting the trial court to reconsider the continuance motion. (Tr. at 15). The 

trial court then asked Ford, who appeared without counsel, whether he informed 

his attorney that the July 7, 2014 trial date was firm. (Id.) Ford indicated that he 

did not because he did not understand. (Id.) The court then stated that it would 

proceed with the trial and Ford represented himself under protest. 

{¶10} The trial then commenced and the City of Defiance called its first 

witness, Brianna Newton. Newton testified that she was driving on February 20, 

2014 in Defiance and that it was icy and slippery outside. Newton testified that 

she was slowing down to stop at a stoplight and she was struck in the back rear 

bumper by Ford. Newton testified that they both pulled into the nearby church 

parking lot and Ford called the police. Newton testified she stayed in her car until 

the police arrived. Ford asked no questions of Newton on cross-examination. 

{¶11} The City of Defiance then called Lieutenant Matthew Martinez of the 

Defiance City Police. Lieutenant Martinez testified that he responded to the call 

regarding the accident. Lieutenant Martinez testified that he spoke with both 

Newton and Ford. Lieutenant Martinez testified that Ford admitted being at fault 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-5- 

at that time and gave a written statement indicating that he was at fault for the 

accident. (Tr. at 24). 

{¶12} Lieutenant Martinez testified that he checked both Newton and 

Ford’s driving information on his computer and found that Ford was “under 

suspension.” (Tr. at 24). Lieutenant Martinez testified that he spoke with Ford 

about being under suspension and Ford indicated that he was aware of his status, 

adding that there were problems with the Michigan Motor Vehicle Department. 

The City introduced Ford’s certified driving record indicating that Ford had failed 

to reinstate his license, as identified by Lieutenant Martinez. Lieutenant Martinez 

testified that he charged Ford with Failure to Control and Failure to Reinstate. 

Ford asked no questions of Lieutenant Martinez on cross-examination. 

{¶13} At the conclusion of Lieutenant Martinez’s testimony, the City of 

Defiance rested. The trial court ultimately found Ford guilty of both Failure to 

Reinstate and Failure to Control. The court sentenced Ford to pay a $500 fine, 

with $400 suspended on the Failure to Reinstate, and ordered no fine with regard 

to the Failure to Control charge. Ford was also ordered to pay court costs. 

Judgment entries reflecting these sentences were filed July 8, 2014. 

{¶14} It is from these judgments that Ford appeals, asserting the following 

assignments of error for our review. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-6- 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

DENY[ING] WILLIAM FORD’S MOTION TO CONTINUE 

DUE TO HIS COUNSEL HAVING A SCHEDULING 

CONFLICT AND BEING UNABLE TO ATTEND THE 

BENCH TRIAL. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT 

CITING SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENYING WILLIAM E. 

FORD’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE BENCH TRIAL OR 

NOT HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TO WHY 

THE CONTINUANCE WAS NEEDED. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3 

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT 

ALLOWING A CONTINUANCE DUE TO THE FACT 

COUNSEL FOR WILLIAM E. FORD WAS NOT PREPARED 

FOR THE TRIAL DUE TO THE FACT COUNSEL FOR 

WILLIAM E. FORD DID NOT RECEIVE DISCOVERY ON 

THE CASE FROM THE CITY OF DEFIANCE UNTIL JULY 

7, 2014 THE DATE OF THE BENCH TRIAL. 

{¶15} As the discussion of the first and third assignments of error is 

interrelated, we elect to address those assignments of error together. 

First and Third Assignments of Error

{¶16} In his first and third assignments of error, Ford argues that the trial 

court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance. Specifically, 

in Ford’s first assignment of error he argues that his attorney had a scheduling 

conflict and was unable to attend the bench trial. In Ford’s third assignment of 

error, Ford argues that even if his attorney could have attended the bench trial, he 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-7- 

would have been unprepared as he had not received discovery until the date of the 

bench trial. 

{¶17} “An appellate court must not reverse the denial of a continuance 

unless there has been an abuse of discretion.” State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 

67 (1981). An abuse of discretion implies that the court’s attitude was 

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 

217, 219 (1983). 

{¶18} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized: “ ‘There are no 

mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to 

violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in 

every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the 

request is denied.’ ” Unger at 67, quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 

(1964). “Weighed against any potential prejudice to a defendant are concerns 

such as a court’s right to control its own docket and the public’s interest in the 

prompt and efficient dispatch of justice.” State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67 

(1981). In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should consider (1) the 

length of the delay requested; (2) whether other continuances have been requested 

and received; (3) the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and 

the court; (4) whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is 

dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; (5) whether the defendant contributed to the 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-8- 

circumstance which gives rise to the request for a continuance; and (6) other 

relevant factors, depending on the unique facts of each case. Id. at 67–68. 

{¶19} In this case, Ford was originally charged in February of 2014 and had 

two pretrial hearings, one in March of 2014, and another in April of 2014. The 

second pretrial hearing was delayed on Ford’s request to continue the original 

date. After the second pretrial hearing, the case was set for a change of plea 

hearing in June of 2014. Ford failed to appear at this hearing and a bench warrant 

was issued. Ford subsequently came to the court and the court held a hearing on 

whether Ford should be found in contempt. At that hearing, Ford expressed why 

he did not attend the scheduled change of plea hearing, and then expressed his 

desire to proceed to trial in the following conversation with the trial court. 

COURT: This is * * * City of Defiance versus William E. Ford. 

Sir, you missed your * * * Court date for June 25th, for a change 

of plea. We had issued a warrant already, when you appeared 

and posted bond on that, and you are appearing today to show 

cause why you shouldn’t be held in contempt. What happened 

on that? 

DEFENDANT: You know, Your Honor, I put it in my calendar 

for the 26th. I have no excuse. I apologize. It was in my head, 

and then what happened, is I got out, I was getting my 

paperwork around for Court the next day. I looked at it, it was 

2:30, 2:15, and I rushed right down here to-- 

COURT: Okay, well, I mean that happens. I mean, so you have 

a bond posted and everything, so that’s fine. So I’m not going to 

find you in contempt. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-9- 

DEFENDANT: Thank you. 

COURT: That’s fine. So you were set for a change of plea, but I 

guess when you appeared then, you indicated you no longer wish 

to enter a change of plea. Is that correct? 

DEFENDANT: Correct, Your Honor. Where, I’m on a time 

constraint. I’m at the final stages of getting my license 

reinstated in Michigan. 

COURT: Okay. 

DEFENDANT: And any travel, any motor or driving 

convictions, by state law in Michigan, I can’t reapply again for 

five years. So we’re trying, Mr. Land1

 and I have been working 

together to push that, and we thought it would all be done by 

that date, but a clerical error, somebody put the wrong date on a 

piece of paper and my attorney2

 didn’t catch it. So it’s been 

pushed back. The date’s been pushed back. 

COURT: Well, this has been pending since February. 

DEFENDANT: I’ve been in this process, Your Honor, for over 

two years, to get my license back in Michigan. 

COURT: So you need to go to trial, then? 

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

COURT: Alright. So we’ll continue this until July 7th at 1: 

p.m., for a trial to the Court. Should you wish to have counsel, 

make sure you tell them when that is.

DEFENDANT: I will, Your Honor.

 

1

 Mr. Land was the Assistant City Law Director prosecuting the case. 

2

 The attorney Ford references here is an attorney Ford had hired in Michigan to try and get his license 

reinstated there. Up to this point, Ford had proceeded pro se in this case. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-10- 

COURT: Because they’ll have to know that it’s coming up and 

they have to be ready to be here on that date and time. 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

COURT: So your bond will continue for your appearance on 

July 7th at 1:00 for the trial. Make sure you have any witnesses or 

anything necessary at that time. 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

COURT: Okay? 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir. 

COURT: Alright, sir, any other questions at all? 

DEFENDANT: No sir. 

(Emphasis added). (Tr. at 10-11). 

{¶20} Ford’s trial was thus set for July 7, 2014. On July 1, 2014, an 

attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Ford, a request for discovery, 

and a motion for continuance. The motion indicated that the attorney had to be in 

court elsewhere on July 7, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. The trial court denied the request for 

continuance the same day it was filed. 

{¶21} On July 7, 2014, on the morning of the scheduled trial, the attorney 

filed a letter with the trial court requesting that the court reconsider its position on 

the motion to continue. The letter stated not only that the attorney had a 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-11- 

preexisting court appearance and was unavailable, but also that he had still not 

received discovery and would be unprepared for trial even if he could attend. 

{¶22} The trial court addressed the attorney’s letter to reconsider at the 

beginning of Ford’s trial. 

COURT: * * * Case Number TR14-528 A and B. It is the City 

of Defiance versus William E. Ford. Mr. Ford is present, pro se. 

Mr. Land, Assistant City Law Director, is present on behalf of 

the City of Defiance. 

{¶23} This was set for trial today’s date and time. 

[Court then gave a summary of the proceedings up to that point] 

* * * 

On June 25th at 1:00 p.m., scheduled for the change of plea, 

Defendant failed to appear and a bench warrant was therefore 

Ordered. It appears that Mr. Ford appeared later that day, the 

bench warrant was served, and at that time the bench warrant 

was served, he stated in writing to the Court that he no longer 

wanted to change his plea and requested a trial. * * * He posted 

bond and then appeared June 27th on the warrant, for a show 

cause hearing for failing to appear. There was no contempt 

issued and we continued the matter until today’s date for trial. 

Mr. Ford was admonished at that time that if he wished the 

services of an attorney, he should specify that this was a firm 

date for trial and to advise any attorney that he might 

potentially have of that fact. 

On July 1st the Court received an Entry of Appearance from 

Attorney Ian Weber. He also filed a Motion for Continuance at 

that time due to just being hired and not being prepared for trial 

on July 7th. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-12- 

I guess I have to ask you, did you tell Mr. Weber that was a firm 

date, that I told you to tell your attorney that, “Hey, this is the 

date that we’re going forward”? 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir, I did tell him that my trial date was July 

7th. 

COURT: And did you tell him that was by the Court that he 

should be notified that was not going to be continued? 

DEFENDANT: I did not, I did not, sir, no. I did not understand 

that was—I did not understand-- 

COURT: You didn’t understand that. Okay, well. What we 

have here is a failure to communicate, because Mr. Weber, the 

first thing he did was file a Motion for a Continuance. That 

Motion was denied. Because this is the firm trial date, as I 

specified earlier and told you to advise your counsel of. So I 

denied that. Mr. Weber writes me a letter today and asks for a 

reconsideration, stating, “Hey, I told you I wasn’t ready, and 

even if I didn’t have a conflict in another Court I couldn’t be 

ready because I didn’t have enough time.” That’s why I told 

you to tell the attorney, make sure they understood what was 

going on. So, we’re ready for trial. 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir. 

COURT: Are you going to represent yourself? 

DEFENDANT: No sir. 

COURT: What are you going to do? 

DEFENDANT: I don’t feel I can provide an adequate defense 

without my attorney present, sir. 

COURT: This is the day. You’re not entitled to counsel by 

appointment of the Court, because these are misdemeanors. It’s 

a minor misdemeanor and an unclassified misdemeanor. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-13- 

There’s no hope of jail time at all. So therefore, you’re, it’s up to 

you to get your own counsel. 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir. 

COURT: I told you what to do with it. You didn’t do it. 

DEFENDANT: I hired the attorney the day—I walked out of 

here that day and hired the attorney that day. 

COURT: And I told you to make sure he knows, or she knows, 

that is the date it’s going. And had you told Mr. Weber that, 

“Mr. Weber, the Judge says there’s not going to be a 

continuance. This is the trial date.” He would have said, “I’m 

sorry, sir, I can’t help you because I’m in another Court that 

day.” But it’s another effort on your part to delay. You’ve been 

delaying the whole time. This has been four and a half months. 

March, April, May, June, now we’re in July. That’s why I’m 

tired of the continued delay and messing with my schedule. 

Messing with my docket. That’s why I told you, “Hey, make 

sure you tell any counsel you intend to hire that this is the day. 

That is the day it’s going.” And here we are. 

* * * 

[The Court then explained to Ford the process of the trial and 

how it would proceed]. 

COURT: [Prosecutor] are you ready to proceed? 

[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: And Mr. Ford, you’re saying you’re going to proceed 

under protest, I take it. 

DEFENDANT: Yes sir. 

COURT: That’s fine. * * * 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-14- 

(Tr. at 14-17). 

{¶24} The trial court’s dialogue with Ford indicates that the court was 

concerned with several of the factors the Ohio Supreme Court listed in Unger, 

supra, that a trial court should consider when evaluating a motion to continue. 

The trial court was clearly concerned with the administration of its docket, the 

long delay in adjudication of a minor misdemeanor and an unclassified 

misdemeanor, and the fact that the need for a further continuance was the result of 

Ford not informing his hired counsel that the trial date was firm, as the court had 

previously expressed to Ford. 

{¶25} The dialogue establishes that Ford’s need for a continuance was 

entirely created by Ford. Ford was specifically informed by the trial court that if 

he was going to get an attorney, he needed to find one who was available for the 

scheduled trial date. Ford’s only effort to this end was to secure an attorney that 

had a preexisting conflict with the time of trial. 

{¶26} In addition to the expressed reasons of why the trial court elected to 

proceed with the trial and deny the motion to continue, we would also note that 

Ford had been previously granted a continuance for a pretrial hearing, and that 

Ford’s attorney’s continuance motion made no assertion as to how long a 

continuance would be necessary. Moreover, Ford was charged with the traffic-
Case No. 4-14-07 

-15- 

related crimes in February of 2014 and he proceeded pro se until six days before 

the July 7, 2014 trial date when he hired an attorney and his attorney filed a notice 

of appearance on July 1. Thus all or nearly all of the factors in Unger weigh 

against Ford. 

{¶27} As to Ford’s claims that his counsel would not have been prepared 

even if he had been available due to not receiving discovery, there is no clear 

indication from the record as to what information Ford was lacking or how he was 

ultimately prejudiced. In fact, Ford’s counsel did receive discovery on the day of 

trial but Ford’s request for discovery was only made six days prior to trial despite 

his case pending for over four months.3

{¶28} Notwithstanding the timing of Ford’s discovery demand, Ford is 

unable to establish any resulting prejudice from receiving discovery on the day of 

trial as the trial transcript established that Ford not only crashed into a woman’s 

car, but that he admitted being culpable for the crash to the Lieutenant who 

responded to the scene. In addition, Ford’s driving record, which was entered into 

evidence, established that he had failed to reinstate his license, and he admitted as 

much to the Lieutenant at the scene. Therefore, the evidence against Ford was 

undisputed and overwhelming, and it is not apparent that he had a defense at all to 

 

3

 Arguably Ford’s demand did not even comply with Criminal Rule 16(M), which requires a defendant to 

demand discovery “within twenty-one days after arraignment or seven days before the date of trial, 

whichever is earlier, or at such reasonable time later as the court may permit.” 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-16- 

the charges. The discovery, which is contained in the record, does not contain any 

exculpatory evidence. 

{¶29} On the basis of the record before us, we cannot find that the trial 

court abused its discretion in overruling Ford’s motion to continue as the trial 

court had ample reason to support its decision to deny Ford’s motion to continue, 

and the trial court had explicitly stated to Ford that the July 7, 2014 trial date was 

firm. Ford simply failed to fully apprise his attorney of this fact, and admitted as 

much to the court on the date of trial. Accordingly, Ford's first and third 

assignments of error are overruled. 

Second Assignment of Error

{¶30} In Ford’s second assignment of error he argues that the trial court 

erred in overruling his motion to continue by not supporting its decision with 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

{¶31} Ford does not cite any legal authority for the principle that the trial 

court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law in overruling a motion to 

continue in this instance. In addition, Ford never requested that the trial court 

issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. As we have been provided with no 

authority requiring the trial court to make such findings, we cannot find that the 

trial court erred in this instance. Accordingly, Ford’s second assignment of error 

is overruled. 
Case No. 4-14-07 

-17- 

{¶32} For the foregoing reasons Ford’s assignments of error are overruled 

and the judgment of the Defiance Municipal Court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur. 

/jlr