COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 82813
 
STATE OF OHIO - ORANGE        :
                              :       ACCELERATED DOCKET
          Plaintiff-Appellee :
                              :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :
    vs.                       :              and
                              :
                              :            OPINION
DANIEL J. JACOBUCCI           :
                              :
          Defendant-Appellant :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                      November 20, 2003
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:          Criminal appeal from
                                  Bedford Municipal Court
                                  Case No. 03 TRD 00351
 
JUDGMENT:                         JUDGMENT REVERSED;
                                  CONVICTION VACATED;
                                  DEFENDANT DISCHARGED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:           ____________________
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Plaintiff-Appellee:           BLAIR MELLING
                                  Prosecutor
                                  City of Solon
                                  32 Columbus Road
                                  Bedford, Ohio 44146
 
 
For Defendant-Appellant:          J. JEFFREY CHURCH
                                  Solon Professional Building
                                  32915 Aurora Road
                                  Suite 180
                                  Solon, Ohio 44139
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J.:
 
    This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar
 
pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the lower
 
court, the briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel.
 
    Defendant-appellant Daniel J. Jacobucci ("appellant") appeals
 
the decision of the Bedford Municipal Court finding him guilty of
 
the offense of failure to control a motor vehicle resulting in a
 
crash. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the trial courts
                                                               '
 
judgment, vacate appellant's conviction, and discharge him.
 
                               I.
 
    We review appellant's second assignment of error first. In
 
his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the "trial
 
court violated Traffic Rule 18 in granting the prosecution an oral
 
continuance on the day of trial." We agree.
 
    Traffic Rule 18 states that "continuances shall be granted
 
only upon a written motion which states the grounds for the
 
requested continuance." The transcript reveals that the state made
 
its motion on the day of trial orally, stating: "I would request
 
that this matter be continued." There is no indication from the
 
record that the state filed the requisite written motion.1
 
    We have previously found that it was within a court        's
 
discretion to deny motions for continuance based upon the
 
defendant's failure to comply with Traffic Rule 18.       City of
 
 
    1The state failed to file an appellate brief.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
Cleveland v. Black (1985), Cuyahoga App. No. 48351. Compliance
 
with Traffic Rule 18 is a burden shared equally between the
 
defendant and the state.
 
     The language of Traffic Rule 18 is clear. The state failed to
 
set forth, in writing, its reasons for the requested continuance.
 
The court abused its discretion by granting the state's oral motion
 
for continuance on the day of trial.2
 
     Appellant's second assignment of error is affirmed.
 
                                II.
 
     Because appellant's second assignment of error has been
 
sustained, we need not address his first assignment of error.
 
App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
 
     Judgment  reversed,    conviction   vacated,   and  defendant
 
discharged.
 
 
 
 
     2
     For discussion of the abuse of discretion standard, see
generally, Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 254.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -4-
 
 
 
     The judgment is reversed, the conviction is vacated, and the
 
defendant ordered discharged.
 
     It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of
 
said appellee costs herein.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
 
directing the Bedford Municipal 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.
 
 
 
                                      ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR.
                                                JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J. and
 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J. CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
   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. 22. 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
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
.