 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Economos10/21/2005
ss appellant's assignment of error, it is first necessary to consider whether it sets forth an actual controversy for this court to resolve. If there is no actual controversy, the appeal is moot. State ex rel. Ohio Association of Public Employees, et al. v. Rootstown Local School District Bd. of Edn. (June 25, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-P-0057, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2950, at. 9. Appeals are moot when their resolution are purely academic and will have no pragmatic bearing upon the legal relations between the parties. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Dec. 19, 1991), 8th Dist. No. 59375, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 6077, at 9.
{ } In denying appellant's motion to suppress, the trial court stated:
{ } "This court finds from the testimony presented that Trooper Zuchowski had probable cause to stop Defendant's vehicle due to the fact that is was after 2 o'clock in the morning and the vehicle was being operated without lights. Second, and independent from the first, the court finds that Trooper Zuchowski had probable cause to believe the offense of dui was committed prior to conducting the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests in question.
{ } "For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion To Suppress is hereby DENIED." (Emphasis added).
{ } The court determined that probable cause to arrest appellant for driving under the influence was present irrespective of the results of the field sobriety tests. In other words, the court determined it did not need the field sobriety test results to support a legal finding of probable cause. Where a trial court makes a valid probable cause determination without recourse to field sobriety tests, the manner and method of administering the tests used by the arresting officer is inconsequential. We therefore decline to address the merits of appellant's appeal.
{ } While we acknowledge considering appellant's assigned error may have some impact upon the general legal landscape, our opinion would be merely advisory.
{ } "The duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. It necessarily follows that when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal. *" Mills v. Green (1895), 150 U.S. 651, 653.
{ } In essence, appellant's assignment of error asks this court to address an "abstract proposition" which would not affect the legal relations of the parties.
{ } Based upon the foregoing, the instant appeal is dismissed as moot.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|