 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Meissner11/28/2005
a) of this section."
{ } Appellant was served with a BMV Form 2255 license suspension. Pursuant to the form, Sergeant Roth found appellant had a " trong odor of an alcoholic beverage" and " aile (sic) sobriety test." Sergeant Roth indicated " ee Statement of Facts." Appellant argues she was not served with the statement of facts and therefore the BMV Form 2255 was incomplete. In support of her position, appellant relies upon this court's opinion in State v. Willman, Fairfield App. No. 01CA00055, 2002-Ohio-3474, wherein this court reviewed an almost identical fact pattern and held because the trooper did not serve the defendant with the "supplement" as indicated on the BMV Form 2255, the form was incomplete. As a result, the trooper failed to comply with the mandatory requirements and appellant was not provided with adequate notice.
{ } We find the Willman case to be distinguishable from the case sub judice. In Willman, the trooper "set forth his reasonable grounds of OMVI before the administration of the test as 'See Supplement.' " Willman, at 6. In this case, Sergeant Roth indicated there was a strong odor of alcohol and appellant failed the sobriety test. The BMV Form 2255 sub judice complied with the mandates of R.C. 4511.191(D)(1)(c) and appellant was served with adequate notice.
{ } Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying appellant's appeal of the administrative license suspension.
{ } The sole assignment of error is denied.
{ } The judgment of the Mount Vernon Municipal Court of Knox County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J., Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Mount Vernon Municipal Court of Knox County, Ohio is affirmed.
|