COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70540 CITY OF CLEVELAND : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION GERALD CASTELLI : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 21, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Cleveland Municipal Court : Case No. 95 TRC 057898 JUDGMENT : VACATED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: CAROLYN W. ALLEN Chief Prosecuting Attorney City of Cleveland JOSE A. TORRES, Assistant Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: THOMAS E. O'TOOLE Attorney at Law 55 Public Square, Suite 1330 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J.: Defendant-appellant, Gerald Castelli ("Castelli"), appeals the decision of the Cleveland Municipal Court denying his motion to dismiss the charge of driving with a breath-alcohol concentration in excess of 0.10 and his motion seeking to suppress the breathalyzer test results. On November 11, 1995, Castelli was arrested and subsequently charged with the following offenses: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs in violation of Cleveland Cod. Ord. 433.01(a)(1); (2) driving with a breath-alcohol concentration in excess of 0.10 in violation of Cleveland Cod. Ord. 433.01(a)(3); (3) operating a vehicle in disregard for the safety of others in violation of Cleveland Cod. Ord. 433.08; (4) operating a vehicle without headlights in violation of Cleveland Cod. Ord. 437.02(a); and (5) exceeding the maximum speed limit in violation of Cleve- land Cod. Ord. 433.03. As a second offender, his license was administratively suspended for one year as provided in R.C. 4511.191 although he was given occupational driving privileges. Because the breath-alcohol citation was neither signed nor served upon him, Castelli objected to this charge both at his arraignment and in a subsequently-filed motion to dismiss. Castelli likewise moved to exclude the breathalyzer test results on - 3 - the basis that the City of Cleveland ("city") failed to show that the test was conducted in compliance with Ohio Department of Health regulations. Nonetheless, in the event the municipal court denied the pending motions, Castelli agreed to plead no contest to the breath-alcohol charge in exchange for the dismissal of the remain- ing charges. Castelli ultimately pled no contest when it was evident that at least the outstanding motion to dismiss would be 1 denied. Upon a finding of guilty, Castelli was fined $1,000 and sen- tenced to one hundred eighty days in jail, of which $500 and one hundred seventy days were suspended. His license was suspended for one year from the date of sentencing, March 28, 1996, and he was placed on two years active probation. Additionally, he was to provide eighty hours of community service and attend five Alcohol- ics Anonymous meetings. Because the record does not reflect that the ALS was terminated, the ALS continues to be in effect and is running concurrently with the suspension received at sentencing. After Castelli paid the unsuspended fine and served the ten- day jail sentence, he moved to stay the remaining sentence pending appeal. This request was denied in the municipal court but granted by this court pursuant to App.R. 8(B). 1 A review of the record fails to reveal a journal entry expressly denying either motion. In the absence of an entry denying these motions, this court will presume that they were overruled. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 223; Wiltsie v. Teamor (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 380, 389; State v. Walker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 518, 522; Mancino v. Lakewood (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 219, 222. - 4 - In his appeal to this court, Castelli assigns the following errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUP- PRESS/IN LIMINE. I. In his first assignment of error, Castelli argues, in part, that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to convict him of the breath-alcohol charge because the traffic citation for this offense was not signed and, therefore, could not serve as a valid complaint. The city offers no argument in opposition. It is axiomatic that the filing of a valid complaint is a 2 necessary prerequisite to a court's acquiring jurisdiction. In traffic cases, the Uniform Traffic Ticket as set forth in the Ohio Traffic Rules Appendix is the mandatory form that serves as the 3 complaint and summons in all Ohio courts. In issuing a properly-completed traffic citation, Traf.R. 3(E) provides that the law enforcement officer "shall complete and sign the ticket, serve a copy of the completed ticket upon defendant, 2 New Albany v. Dalton (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 307, 311; see, also, State v. Jones (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 604, 606; State v. Keegan (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 824, 826. 3 Cleveland v. Winchell (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 186, 187; see, also, Cleveland v. Austin (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 215; Traf.R. 3(A) and 21. - 5 - and, without unnecessary delay, file the court copy with the court." While the officer's signature need not be sworn, a 4 signature is required. The traffic ticket at issue is devoid of any signature, without which the ticket does not satisfy the minimum requirements of a valid complaint so as to invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the municipal court. Because the court lacked jur- isdiction to hear and decide the merits of the city's complaint against appellant, appellant's conviction must be vacated. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is sus- tained. II. Because of our disposition of appellant's first assignment of error, appellant's remaining assignment of error is moot and need 5 not be addressed. 4 State v. Wilson (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 1, 5; see, also, Austin, supra, at 223. 5 App.R. 12(A)(1(c). - 6 - This cause is vacated and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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, P.J. and TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. CONCUR JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .