City of Cleveland Heights v. Perryman
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMarkus, J.
Defendants appeal from their separate municipal court convictions, arguing that their traffic tickets failed to define the alleged violations sufficiently, and could have deprived them of notice and an adequate opportunity to prepare their defenses. 1 Additionally, defendants assert that the municipal court improperly allowed the city prosecutor to amend their traffic citations on the day of trial. While we agree with defendants’ first proposition, we affirm the convictions, since the amendments were proper and no prejudice was demonstrated to either defendant by those amendments.
Perryman was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. OwensOhio Court of Appeals · 1975
- City of Cleveland v. AustinOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. PreslerOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
- Diebler v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Kinkus v. Village of YorkvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- State v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. McFeely, 2008-A-0067 (3-27-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- State v. CampbellOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
- City of North Olmsted v. GreinerOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.