COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71400 CITY OF CLEVELAND : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION VINCENT A. IRELAND : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT MAY 14, 1998 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 96-TRD-58655AB JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: CAROLYN WATTS-ALLEN, ESQ. Cleveland City Prosecutor PINKNEY S. CARR, ESQ. Assistant Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: VINCENT A. IRELAND, ESQ. 2639 Kerwick Road University Heights, Ohio 44118 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: Appellant Vincent Ireland appeals the decision of the trial court convicting him of failing to display a license plate and -2- failure to wear a seat belt and sentencing him accordingly. Ireland, pro se, assigns the following errors for our review: I. THE MAGISTRATE FOUND ME NOT GUILTY ON IMPROPER DISPLAY, AND FINED ME FOR NOT WEARING A SEATBELT. I CHANGED MY PLEA TO NOT GUILTY AND A COURT DATE WAS SCHEDULED. [sic] II. I UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS ONLY ARGUING THE CASE OF THE SEATBELT AT THE HEARING WITH JUDGE KILBANE. [sic] III. THE ISSUING OFFICER STATED THAT HE SAW MY FRONT LICENSE PLATE ON THE SEAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUING ME A TICKET AND THAT HE SAW MY SEAT BELT MOVEING [sic] WHEN HE PULLED ME OVER. IV. JUDGE KILBANE STATED THAT I SHOULD HAVE WORKED OUT A DEAL WITH THE PROSECUTER [sic] BEFORE THE HEARING, I EXPLAINED THAT I AM NOT A LAWYER AND WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS. V. I DO NOT FEEL THAT JUDGE KILBANE CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE IN HER CONCLUSION OF THE VERDICT. [sic] Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. On August 28, 1996, Ireland was ticketed for failure to display a front license plate and failure to wear a seatbelt. He appeared in court on September 12, 1996 and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. The case went to trial on September 19, 1996. Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Dembowski testified that he stopped Ireland's car after noticing the car had no front license plate. As he approached the car, Dembowski saw that the front license plate was on the floor. He also noticed that Ireland was -3- not wearing his seat belt. Ireland was cited for failure to display his license plate and failure to wear a seatbelt. Ireland gave the following testimony: That morning, I woke up to go to work and I noticed that my front license plate was laying on the ground. I was running late for work. I put the license plate on the floorboard. Somebody had stolen the bracket that attached to the car. After work, I was going to get a bracket. During my lunch break, that's when I got pulled over. As he pulled me over, I came to a complete stop. To get my wallet out, I did undo my seatbelt and he came up to the car and I had my license out and my proof of insurance and he never mentioned [sic] seatbelt, so I didn't feel that I needed to tell him I just took it off. (Tr. 6-7.) Ireland was found guilty and was fined $50.00 for failure to display his license plate and $25.00 for failure to wear his seat belt. After Ireland complained that he didn't understand why he was being found guilty, the trial court stated: It was your decision, sir, to have a trial today. You knew it was a possibility that you could have talked to the prosecutor about this. (Tr. 8.) Ireland replied I wasn't aware that I could talk to the prosecutor. (Tr. 8.) In his brief before this court, Ireland repeats the arguments he raised at trial. He argues he was wearing his seatbelt when he was stopped. He admits the front license plate was not on the car but argues it was missing because he had not yet replaced the license plate mounting bracket that had been stolen from his car. -4- The city points to Officer Dembowski's testimony that Ireland was not wearing his seatbelt at the time he was stopped. Ireland admitted the license plate was not on the car. Consequently,the trial court properly convicted him of failure to display a license plate. However, the trial court was faced with conflicting testimony from Officer Dembowski and Ireland about whether Ireland was wearing his seatbelt. We must note at the outset that resolving conflicts in the testimony of witnesses is the function of the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Since the factfinder has the ability to observe the witnesses' demeanor, deference is given to the trier of fact because she is "best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Id. These observations, and the information to be gleaned from them, do not come across to the reviewing court through the printed record. Gardini v. Moyer (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 479. The choice between credible witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely with the finder of fact and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact." State v. Turvey (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 724, 733. (Citation omitted.) As the fact finder, the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the -5- conflicting testimony. We defer to the trial court's determination and affirm its decision. Ireland's assigned errors are overruled. Judgment affirmed. 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. KARPINSKI, J., and PATTON, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON ADMINISTRATIVE 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 .