COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60481 CITY OF PARMA : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : : and -vs- : : OPINION PHILLIP F. SPURLOCK : : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 28, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Parma Municipal Court Case No. 90- TRD-2748 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Christopher J. Boyko Phillip F. Spurlock, Pro se Chief Prosecutor 2918 Grovewood David W. Toetz Parma, Ohio 44129 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney City of Parma 5750 West 54th Street Parma, Ohio 44129 - 1 - DYKE, P.J.: This case raises the question of whether a traffic citation, not signed by a prosecutor or law director, constitutes a valid criminal complaint. Upon review of the challenged citation, the applicable case law and the statutes we find that it does and therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. A Parma police officer issued three traffic citations to Phillip Spurlock in 1990. Spurlock filed pre-trial motions essentially arguing the Parma Municipal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. He posited that the citations were invalid criminal complaints because they were not signed by the prosecutor or law director. All of these motions were overruled. Defendant refused to enter a plea or attend trial. The court entered a not guilty plea in his behalf and later found him guilty on two traffic counts, the third being dismissed by the city. It is from this judgment that defendant timely appeals. In his sole assignment of error, Spurlock again argues lack of subject matter jurisdiction since the citations were not signed by the city prosecutor or law director. He also argues the court erred in entering a plea for him when he refused to do so. The Uniform Traffic Ticket as set forth in the Ohio Traffic Rules Appendix pursuant to Traf. R. 21 is the mandatory form of complaint for traffic cases in all Ohio courts. Cleveland v. Winchell (1981), 3 Ohio App. 3d 186, 187. See, also, Cleveland v. Austin (1978), 55 Ohio App. 2d 915. The Ohio Traffic Rules were - 2 - promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court pursuant to R.C. 2935.17 and 2937.46. R.C. 2935.17 provides in part: "***[T]he supreme court of Ohio may, by rule, provide for the uniform type and language to be used in any affidavit or complaint to be filed in any court inferior to the court of common pleas for violations of the motor vehicle and traffic acts and related ordinances and in any notice to violator to appear in such courts, and may require that such forms and no other, shall be received in such courts, and issued to violators." In Winchell, supra, this court observed: "Traf. R. 1(A), 3(A) and 21 indicate the Supreme Court's intention to make the Uniform Traffic Ticket exclusive and mandatory in traffic cases. Traf. R. 1(A) provides in part: "These rules prescribe the procedure to be followed in all courts of this state in traffic cases ***. "Traf. R. 3(A) and 21, respectively, provide: "In traffic cases the complaint and summons shall be the 'Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket' as set out in the Appendix of Forms. "The forms contained in the Appendix of Forms are mandatory, ***." Id. at 187. In comparing the Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket with those issued to defendant, we find they are identical. Thus, we conclude the challenged citations constitute valid complaints. Defendant has cited neither case law nor statute to indicate a policeman is an improper signatory to a uniform traffic ticket, nor can we find any. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to try the charges. - 3 - We also reject Spurlock's claim that the court erred in entering a plea of not guilty on his behalf. Traf. R. 10(A) and Crim. R. 11(A) both specifically provide: "If a defendant refuses to plea, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant." Spurlock refused to enter a plea as to the charges before him. Thus, the trial court entered pleas of not guilty to each charge. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J., *COX, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE *(Sitting by Assignment: Judge Edward A. Cox of the Seventh District Court of Appeals). N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .