COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71512 CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN PARK : DISTRICT : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION RAYMOND E. SCHILLINGER : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Garfield Hts. Municipal Court Case No. 96-6002-AB JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: JAMES J. MCGRATH, ESQ. DOUGLAS B. MAHER, ESQ. Prosecutor 808 Key Building 555 Turney Road Akron, Ohio 44308 Garfield Hts., Ohio 44125 And And MICHAEL A. PARTLOW, ESQ. JOSEPH FEIGHAN, JR., ESQ. Morganstern Macadams & Devito 11009 Edgewater Drive 400 Burgess Building Cleveland, Ohio 44102 1406 W. Sixth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: Raymond E. Schillinger, defendant-appellant, appeals the decision of the trial court, convicting him of driving under 2 suspension and speeding and sentencing him accordingly. Schillinger assigns the following error for our review: WHETHER A CONVICTION FOR OPERATING UNDER A SECURITY SUSPENSION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 4507.02 (D) IS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING SUCH IS AN UNAUTHENTICATED LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA SYSTEM PRINTOUT. Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Ranger M. Walker of the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District ( CMPD ) charged Raymond E. Schillinger with speeding and driving under license suspension. The matter proceeded to trial in the Garfield Municipal Court. The parties agreed and the trial court approved an App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence. Thus, the record showed on August 7, 1996, Ranger M. Walker observed a male, later identified as Schillinger, operating a motor vehicle on Gorge Parkway at a speed of 37 mph, beyond the posted speed limit of 20 mph. Walker used a speed measuring device that calibrated Schillinger's speed at 37 mph. The speed measuring device had been properly tested and calibrated and in proper working order. During the stop, Walker requested Schillinger's driver's license, which he did not have. Walker ran a check on his license status through police radio and learned that his license had been suspended. At the trial, the prosecutor presented to Walker for purposes of identification a Law Enforcement Automated Data Systems 3 ( LEADS ) printout, marked as Exhibit 1. The LEADS printout was of Schillinger's driving record and evidenced his suspension. Over objection by Schillinger, the trial court admitted the printout into evidence. Thereafter, Schillinger moved for an acquittal, which the trial court denied. The defense rested and the trial court found Schillinger guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to 180 days, $1,000 fine plus cost, and suspended driving privileges for a year; 165 days and $500 of the fine was suspended. The trial court stayed the sentence pending this appeal. Schillinger argues the LEADS printout is insufficient evidence of his guilt as a matter of law. To support his argument, Schillinger claims the printout is inadmissible. This court resolved the admissibility of a LEADS printout in State v. Cooper (Mar. 18, 1992), Cuy. App. No. 43765, unreported. In State v. Cooper, we held a LEADS printout is admissible as it contains only the routine activities of a public agency relative to the ownership of a motor vehicle. Id. Schillinger claims the holding in Cooper does not purport that a LEADS printout is per se admissible. However, it does establish that a LEADS printout is admissible as a public record under Evid.R. 803(8)(a). In this case, the prosecutor introduced the printout as a public record. The trial court in its discretion properly admitted it into evidence. The LEADS printout showed Schillinger was under suspension at the time of the offense. 4 Schillinger argues the prosecutor failed to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the printout, citing Columbus v. Wilburn (Aug. 13, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91, AP 231, unreported. In State v. Cooper, we held that a police officer's testimony was sufficient to show authenticity of a LEADS printout under Evid.R. 901(B)(1) and (2). In this case, Ranger Walker identified and authenticated the printout. Consequently, the trial court properly admitted the printout under Evid.R. 803(8)(a), and Columbus v. Wilburn is factually distinguishable. There, the printout was not identified and authenticated. In fact, no testimony regarding the document was solicited. We conclude, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a LEADS printout that is properly admitted into evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving under suspension where the printout shows categorically that the accused's license was under suspension at the time of the offense. Schillinger's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 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 Garfield Heights 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. NAHRA, J., and PATTON, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON PRESIDING 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 .