From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Derov

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 18, 2009
903 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 2008-0853 and 2008-0858.

Submitted February 4, 2009.

Decided March 18, 2009.

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 07 MA 71, 176 Ohio App.3d 43, 2008-Ohio-1672.

Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Robert C. Kokor, for appellee.

Lamkin, Van Eman, Trimble, Beals Dougherty, L.L.C., and Timothy L. Van Eman, urging reversal for amicus curiae Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Joseph R. Macejko, Youngstown City Prosecutor, urging reversal for amicus curiae city of Youngstown.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, and Jason Patrick Small, Deputy Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General.

Timothy Huey; and Atway Cochran, L.L.C., and Scott R. Cochran, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.


{¶ 1} The record in the trial court concerning the portable breathalyzer test used in this case is not sufficient to support either the statements in the opinion of the court of appeals regarding the use of the portable breathalyzer and the value of its test results or the judgment that the trial court should not have considered the results of the portable breath test. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In view of the foregoing disposition of appellant's Proposition of Law No. II, the notice of certified conflict is dismissed for want of a conflict.

{¶ 3} Sua sponte, the appeal is dismissed as to appellant's Proposition of Law Nos. I and III as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 4} The opinion of the court of appeals may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent in part and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.


Summaries of

State v. Derov

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 18, 2009
903 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 2009)
Case details for

State v. Derov

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. DEROV, APPELLEE. Page 270

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 18, 2009

Citations

903 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 2009)
903 N.E.2d 636
2009 Ohio 1111

Citing Cases

State v. Derov

We vacated the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. That decision was reversed in part and remanded on…

State v. Cunningham

However, the Supreme Court has reversed and remanded part of that case and ruled that the entire opinion…