COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68911 CITY OF WARRENSVILLE HTS. : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JEFFREY M. ECKHART : OPINION : : PER CURIAM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 30, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Bedford Municipal Court, Case No. 95 TRD 00694. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Howard S. Stern, Esq. 75 Public Square, Suite 1400 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2001 For Defendant-appellant: David J. Berta, Esq. 522 Broadway Avenue Lorain, Ohio 44052 - 2 - PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Eckhart appeals from his conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(1). The appellant was fined twenty-five dollars and assessed costs. The appellant's sentence was stayed pending appeal. The appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error: I THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE STATE'S WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO USE A K-55 UNIT WHEN INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED REGARDING THE WITNESS' EXPERIENCE AND FREQUENCY, DURATION AR (SIC) MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE WITNESS' TRAINING IN THE OPERATION OF SUCH DEVICE. A reviewing court will not reverse a verdict where there is substantial evidence upon which the finder of fact could reasonably conclude that all essential elements of an offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ely (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169; The weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 - 3 - Ohio St.2d 230. The function of an appellate court upon reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is to examine the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. In the case sub judice, the trial court heard the testimony of State Highway Patrol Officer James Vargo. Officer Vargo testified that he was in a fully marked patrol cruiser on January 23, 1995 along westbound Interstate 480, a mile from 26 curve, in the Northfield Road area (T. 7). In the vehicle he had a K-55 stationary radar. At the start of his shift he determined that the radar was properly operating by conducting the proper tests in accordance with the directions, instructions and specifications of the manufacturer. At approximately 10:35 a.m., he observed a 1991, white and yellow truck that was exceeding the 55 mile an hour speed limit. He activated his radar and clocked the vehicle at 66, 66, 64, 61 and 60 miles per hour. He pulled out behind the vehicle driven by the appellant and stopped it down the road. Officer Vargo testified that the radar is checked by department technicians semi-annually to determine its accuracy. The last time he recalled this unit being checked was last November. Officer Vargo testified that he has twenty-three years of experience in operating the radar and that he is thoroughly - 4 - familiar with how it works and its capabilities. He stated that his original training was a forty-hour course; that five or six years of his career have been spent dealing strictly with the radar itself; that he is updated every year; that a written radar proficiency test is given by the department twice a year; and that he has passed those tests. This testimony, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and if believed by the trier of fact, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the appellant presented evidence which calls into question the testimony of Officer Vargo, the weight and credibility to be given testimony is left to the trier of fact. The prosecution presented sufficient evidence upon which to base the appellant's conviction and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - 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 Bedford Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. 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, .