COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71254 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF CLEVELAND : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and v. : : OPINION NICK PAPADELIS : : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 3, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. CR-95-28194 JUDGMENT: Reversed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: SHARON SOBOL JORDAN, ESQ. JOSEPH BANCSI, ESQ. Director of Law JOSEPH BANCSI CO., L.P.A. Interstate Square Building One WILLIE MITCHELL, ESQ. 4230 State Route 306, Ste. 240 Assistant Director of Law Willoughby, Ohio 44094 Room 106 - City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This case arises as an appeal from the decision of Cleveland Municipal Court, finding Nick Papadelis, owner of the property at 3524 West 105th Street, guilty of violating Cleveland Ordinance Section No. 209.01. In a trial to the bench on August 14, 1996, Mr. Papadelis was found guilty in three consolidated cases: Nos. 95-28196, 95- 28195, and No. 95-28194, the case at bar. According to his counsel, Mr. Papadelis later put the property in full compliance. (Sentencing Tr. p. 47.) The property was subsequently purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Martinez and bulldozed, apparently by the City. (Sentencing Tr. p. 5). On September 5, 1996, the municipal judge fined Mr. Papadelis $100.00, but suspended sentence. Appellant states only one assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSABLE [SIC] ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO DISMISS THE CHARGE AGAINST APPELLANT, SINCE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED CLEVELAND ORDINANCE NO. 209.01. The Health Code Misdemeanor Citation, dated September 15, 1995, specifies that Wiley Hardy inspected the premises on September 14, 1995, and found the owner, Nick Papadelis, in violation of Section 209.0l of the Cleveland Municipal Ordinances for "failure to cut high weeds and grass." The form also contained a summons requiring the owner to appear in court on October 25, 1995. - 3 - This citation was filed with the Cleveland Clerk of Courts on September 27, 1995. Section 209.01 requires owners to keep their property free from certain noxious weeds as well as "all other noxious weeds." Section 209.04 includes under the definition of "other noxious weeds" "grass over ten inches in height." Section 209.03 requires that the owner be served written notice that noxious weeds must be "removed, turned under or destroyed by spraying" and that this process be commenced within fourteen days after mailing of such notice. Inspector Willie Hardy testified at the trial that he wrote the citation and that on September 14, 1995 he observed various violations, including "high weeds and grass there too." (Tr. 8-9.) He further stated that he returned to the property later and observed that the "weeds was not cut" as well as other continuing violations. (Tr. 10.) He also testified that a written notice was sent to defendant advising what he was violating and that he had seven days to correct the problem. (Tr. 9.) A copy of that paper was not brought to the trial and is not in the record. Nor is there anything in the record to show Mr. Papadelis specifically was sent such notice. However, the inspector did testify that it is the procedure of his office to mail out complaints and advise owners how many days they have to comply and that there had never been a case when he did not follow this procedure. (Tr. 18.) Finally, the inspector testified he returned to inspect the - 4 - property some time after seven days had elapsed, and did not remember the exact date. (Tr. 9.) There are two substantial errors in the City's case. First, Cleveland Ordinance 209.03, as amended in 1991, expressly says that an owner has fourteen days after the mailing of notice to remove noxious weeds (that is, grass over ten inches). The inspector admits his notice specified seven days. He also testified that the owner had failed to comply by the time he revisited the property, sometime after seven days. Such vagueness of date is insufficient evidence of non-compliance after fourteen days. The testimony of the inspector is fatally deficient, moreover, on another point. A violation of the statute occurs only if the grass/weeds are over 10 inches. The inspector's testimony that the weeds and grass were "high" does not meet the evidentiary requirement. Because the evidence was insufficient on two points, the trial court should have granted appellant's motion and dismissed the case. Judgment reversed. - 5 - This cause is reversed. 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. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, JUDGE, CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE 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 .