COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71255 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF CLEVELAND : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION : NICK PAPADELIS : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JULY 3, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. CR-95-28195 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: WILLIE MITCHELL, ESQ. JOSEPH BANCSI, ESQ. Assistant Law Director 20545 Center Ridge Road City Hall, Room 106 Rocky River, Ohio 44116 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This appeal was filed, briefed, and argued as an accelerated appeal pursuant to Local R. 25 of this court. Nick Papadelis, defendant-appellant, timely appeals the decision of the Cleveland Municipal Court finding him guilty of violating C.C.O. 203.07 for failing to remove waste and debris from his garage. Papadelis assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSIBLE 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. 203.7. In compliance with App.R. 11.1, we conclude the trial court did not err in convicting Papadelis. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. On September 14, 1995, City Health Inspector Willie Hardy inspected Papadelis' property at 3514 W. 105th Street. Hardy observed "a garage filled with *** garbage." (Tr. at 7.) He also stated "[t]he garage needed to be cleaned. It was rodent infested, and it was high weeds and grass there too." (Tr. at 8.) Hardy sent Papadelis a notice of violation giving him seven days to clean up the property. Though unsure of the exact date, Hardy stated he returned to the property more than seven days later. He discovered there was still rubbish and debris on the property and the weeds had not been cut. Hardy took pictures of the property. - 3 - On September 29, 1996, a complaint was filed against Papadelis. On October 25, 1995, a capias was issued for Papadelis' arrest for failure to appear. After several continuances necessitated by Papadelis' failure to appear, the case was heard on August 14, 1996. Papadelis moved to dismiss the charges because the city failed to prove that a notice of violation was sent to him, and the city failed to prove its case. He also argued the city failed to adequately prove its case. The court overruled the motion. It noted Inspector Hardy's testimony that he sent the notices. Since the law does not require certified mail service of violations, the inspector's testimony was held by the trial court to be sufficient proof of service. The court further reasoned Papadelis was given additional time to remedy problems on his property. This fact the court felt demonstrated that the city had not violated Papadelis' due process rights. Thus, Papadelis was found guilty and ordered to pay a $100 fine plus costs. His sentence was suspended. On appeal, Papadelis raises the same arguments regarding notice and sufficiency of evidence. We conclude his arguments lack merit. Inspector Hardy testified he mailed Papadelis a notice of violation. He also described the City's standard procedure for processing criminal complaints against property owners. A: First, we get a complaint, then we go out and we write an order to the owner; find out who the owner is. We title search and everything. We mail them out and everything. We give them so many days to comply. After they don't - 4 - comply, then we write a ticket to them. Q: And you do this for every single case? A: We do this for every single case. Q: Has there ever been a case where you didn't do this? A: No. (Tr. 18.) Viewing Inspector Hardy's evidence most strongly in favor of the City, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have determined that the notice of violation was sent to Papadelis. Also, Inspector Hardy described Papadelis' garage as being filled with garbage and infested with rodents. He also described high weeds and grass. This evidence, if believed, was sufficient to warrant a conviction under C.C.O. 203.07. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 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 Cleveland 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. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING J. ANN DYKE, JUDGE 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 .