COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67856 CITY OF CLEVELAND : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DAVID BARCUS : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MAY 25, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court : Case No. 94-TRC-43522A JUDGMENT : DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: CORNELL P. CARTER, ESQ. DAVID J. RICHARDS, ESQ. Assistant City Prosecutor Dworken & Bernstein Co. Justice Center-8th Floor 153 East Erie Street 1200 Ontario Street Painesville, OH 44077 Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Defendant-appellant, David Barcus, appeals the trial court's ruling finding him in violation of R.C. 4503.11, operating an unregistered vehicle without a license, a fourth degree misde- meanor. The following facts were adduced at Barcus' bench trial. On June 1, 1994, Barcus was cited by a Cleveland Police Officer for operating an unregistered motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 4503.11. It is undisputed that Barcus was operating a conventional truck cab and chassis on which was mounted specialized equipment used for excavating fence and guard rail post holes. Barcus admitted to operating the unregistered vehicle at the time the citation was issued but claimed that he was not in violation of R.C. 4503.11 because the vehicle was not a motor vehicle as defined in R.C. 4511.01(B) and is therefore not required to be registered under Ohio law. The trial court found that the unregistered vehicle Barcus was operating was a motor vehicle pursuant to R.C. 4511.01(B). Accordingly, the trial court ruled against Barcus and fined him $215. Barcus paid the fine in full on August 8, 1994. Barcus' sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF OPERATING AN UNREGISTERED VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF REVISED CODE 4503.11. Barcus maintains that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of operating an unregistered vehicle in violation of R.C. - 3 - 4503.11. Specifically, Barcus claims that his vehicle falls in the category of "hole-digging machinery" in R.C. 4511.01(B) and therefore is exempt from the definition of motor vehicle. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a person convicted of a misdemeanor has voluntarily completed his sentence and/or paid his fine for that offense, and thereafter appeals, his appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction. State v. Berndt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 4; State v. Golston (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 224. Barcus has offered no evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights resulting from his conviction. Barcus' brief is directed solely to matters such as the trial court's failure to find that his vehicle was within the exception to R.C. 4511.01(B). Therefore, his assignment of error is rendered moot. Appeal dismissed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland Municipal 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. DAVID T. MATIA, J. DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .