[Cite as State v. Ide,
2024-Ohio-5527.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals Nos. L-23-1266
L-23-1267
L-23-1268
Appellee
Trial Court Nos. CRB2200738
CRB2200855
CRB2300055
v.
Timothy Ide DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: November 22, 2024
…
Daniel C. Arnold, City of Maumee Prosecuting Attorney,
for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
…
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal by appellant, Timothy Ide, from the judgments
of the Maumee Municipal Court, rendered September 28, 2023. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgments, in part, and reverse, in part.
{¶ 2} Ide sets forth two assignments of error:
I. Mr. Ide’s conviction for failing to obtain a building permit was not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Ide’s motion for
acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29 based on insufficient evidence.
Background
{¶ 3} In August 2017, Ide and Megan Bremer purchased a home for cash in
Maumee, Ohio (“Maumee home”), and the deed was recorded in Bremer’s name only.
{¶ 4} In or around 2018, the City of Maumee became aware that remodeling and
construction was occurring at the Maumee home when Bremer engaged a foundation
repair contractor. The contractor pulled a permit for the job from the city, there were
inspections conducted by the city, then the foundation job “went south” and was not
finished by the contractor. Also, in or around 2018, two additional permits were
obtained, one for electrical work and one for plumbing work at the Maumee home.
Thereafter, construction continued on the Maumee home, but without permits,1 including
the building of a porch/deck.2
1
The record indicates Bremer recently obtained permits, but that has no bearing
on this case. In addition, Bremer was issued a mechanical permit on January 1, 2023, for
a furnace replacement, which also has no bearing on this case, as Ide was not charged
with or convicted of installing a furnace.
2
There are references in the record to a porch and a deck; both terms refer to the
same structure. We will refer to the structure as a deck.
2.
{¶ 5} On June 28, 2021, the city conducted an inspection of the Maumee home’s
deck. The city subsequently issued a stop work order to Bremer.
{¶ 6} According to Ide, he “was summonsed on October 24, 2022 for ‘failing to
register as a contractor’ (22CRB[]0738) . . . He was also summonsed on December 21,
2022 (22CRB[]0855) for allegedly constructing a deck without a proper permit . . . On
January 26, 2023, he was summonsed for allegedly performing plumbing and/or
electrical work which violated the City of Maumee building code[,]” (Maumee Municipal
Court case No. 23-CRB-055.)
{¶ 7} A bench trial for all of the charges was held on June 21, 2023. Three
witnesses testified: Mark Westcott, Building Inspector for Maumee; Curt Smith,
Information and Technologies Manager for Maumee; and Ide. The judge found Ide
guilty of all of the charged offenses, and Ide was sentenced. Ide appealed.
Bench Trial
{¶ 8} The relevant witness testimony is summarized below.3
{¶ 9} The city called Building Inspector Mark Westcott, who testified that in
Maumee, permits are needed for just about everything other than minor home repairs. If
a homeowner pulls a permit to do work themselves, the homeowner does not need to be a
licensed contractor. Also, a homeowner’s friend can provide “assistance lifting
something or helping move something,” without being a licensed contractor, so Bremer,
3
Additional relevant testimony is set forth in the parties’ arguments.
3.
as the homeowner, could have a “family member or something” help her for “a water
heater or something like that, you know, something small.” Ide, however, was not able to
pull a permit himself, because the proper person to pull permits for the Maumee home
were either Bremer, as the homeowner, or a licensed contractor.
{¶ 10} Westcott further testified that Ide never registered as a contractor in the
city, and Westcott agreed that “there is a process that you can . . . register as a contractor
for somebody that’s going to perform work at a premises in Maumee[.]” Westcott
discussed photos posted online on Ide’s Flickr account of the Maumee home, and other
online posts by Ide regarding the Maumee home.
{¶ 11} After the city rested, Ide’s defense attorney made a Crim.R. 29 motion to
dismiss the charges, arguing the two issues on trial were Ide performing work without the
proper licensure, and Ide pulling permits. Counsel asserted, inter alia, that according to
Maumee Municipal Code (“MMC”) 1305.03, the intent of the chapter was for building
construction companies, not private individuals. Counsel claimed the city was trying to
label Ide as a contractor, but no testimony was offered that he worked as contractor. The
Crim.R. 29 motion was denied.
{¶ 12} Ide testified that he and Bremer paid cash for the Maumee home and
Bremer owned it. The Maumee home was in Bremer’s name because he is 20 years older
than she. He posted hundreds of posts on the city’s Facebook page that “we are
performing work with no permits, we need help.” He and Bremer tried to work with the
city, but they did not hear from the city until July 2021. Ide “didn’t know how to do
4.
plumbing and electrical so [he] didn’t do it[,]” but he helped the homeowner who did
these projects with her family.
{¶ 13} Ide further testified that he is not a contractor, he was not legally contracted
to do anything, and according to the law, a contractor is in business, but he is not in the
business. He does not have a business address or a business card, and he was never paid
for any work at the Maumee home other than with ‘kisses and pork chops.”
Ide’s Appeal
{¶ 14} We will examine Ide’s assignments of error together, as he presents many
of the same arguments in both assigned errors. We note that Ide sets forth sections of the
MMC in the portion of his brief before the arguments in support of his assigned errors.
Ide did not refer to MMC sections in his arguments, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7)
(“The appellant shall include in its brief . . . [a]n argument containing the contentions of
the appellant . . . and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the
authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.”) and Sixth District
Loc.R. 10(C) (“Case citations and other legal authorities must appear in the text of the
argument after the point of law for which the case or legal authority is cited, . . . and must
include the volume and page number of the case, and the particular page or paragraph
number where the point of law is found.”). We address Ide’s arguments as presented,
mindful that “appellant has the burden of demonstrating error on appeal[.]” State v.
Knight, 2022-Ohio-1787, ¶ 46 (6th Dist.).
5.
First Assignment of Error
Ide’s Arguments
{¶ 15} Ide argues his conviction for failing to obtain a building permit for the deck
was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. He contends he should be
found to fit the definition of a homeowner, as a person who owns a home, and, pursuant
to the Maumee building code, as an occupier of the premises. He submits “[t]his court
should find that, at least in this case, the City of Maumee is creating their own problems
by refusing to allow him to pull a permit for renovations at the home where he lives.”
{¶ 16} Ide also argues the city did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he
built the deck, as the city introduced pictures of the deck under construction, that were on
his Flickr account, but without authenticating details, such as who took the pictures or
when the pictures were taken. He further asserts there were no pictures of anyone
actually building the deck, except presumptively Bremer, who appeared in one picture
swinging a hammer. He submits the pictures prove that a deck was built, but not who
built it.
{¶ 17} In addition, Ide claims the only persons authorized to pull the permit for the
deck were Bremer and a licensed contractor, if there was one. He contends that he was
not the proper person to charge with failing to obtain a permit because according to the
city, Bremer is the homeowner and “the proper charging entity is the homeowner[.]”
6.
The City’s Arguments
{¶ 18} The city counters, with respect to the photographs and other exhibits
presented at trial, that Ide himself testified they were true and accurate copies
(“Absolutely[.] I posted all of them. Those are contemporaneous notes. I’m not
embarrassed to [sic] anything I wrote.”), and Ide confirmed that he made the post: “[w]e
are supposed to have permits for nearly everything, but the City of Maumee gives us a
pass as they trust us implicitly and do not require us to obtain permits or get inspections
or go before the design review board. We’re special.” The city argues that Ide conceded
any argument that the exhibits were inadmissible when the exhibits were admitted at trial
without objection.
{¶ 19} The city observes that in another post by Ide, offered as an exhibit, he
stated:
Megan and I have totally rewired our entire home from the main power
pole in the alley to masthead, meter socket, breaker panel, to every outlet,
switch, fixture. We have totally replaced 100 percent of the plumbing from
the mainline buried in the backyard to every fixture. We have replaced 100
percent of natural gas pipeline from the meter to the range and 43[-]inch
fireplace in our living room. We have re-boxed and rebuilt every window
adding windows that were not present before and removing altogether other
windows. We have totally re-sheeted the exterior. And after totally gutting
the inside, we re-insulated every wall. We received no building services of
any kind from the City of Maumee. No code enforcement of any kind.
{¶ 20} Ide also set forth in another post that that there were no contractors and he
and Megan performed 100% of the work themselves.
{¶ 21} The city asserts Ide’s posts were compelling evidence that he knew permits
were needed for performing much if not all of the work that he did at the Maumee home
7.
and he chose not to obtain the permits in contravention of the law. The city also claims
there were photographs presented of Ide performing some of the work on the Maumee
home.
{¶ 22} The city acknowledges Ide’s trial testimony where he denied doing any of
the work because he did not know how to do certain things, but the city claims Ide wants
the court to ignore the other evidence which established all elements of the offenses for
which he was convicted. The city submits that the judge at the bench trial weighed the
evidence and found the State’s witnesses more credible than Ide. The city maintains the
judge, as the trier of fact, cannot be found to clearly have lost his way nor does the
evidence weigh heavily against a conviction.
Proper Party
{¶ 23} Regarding Ide’s assertion that he was not the proper party to charge, the
city contends Ide could have raised this issue in the trial court, but did not do so, and it
cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal. The city cites to State v. Awan, 22 Ohio
St.3d 120, 122 (1986), quoting State v. Childs
14 Ohio St.2d 56 (1968) (“The general rule
is that ‘an appellate court will not consider any error which counsel for a party
complaining of the trial court’s judgment could have called but did not call to the trial
court’s attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the
trial court.’”).
8.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 24} Ide argues the trial court abused its discretion4 when it denied his Crim.R.
29 motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence that he performed plumbing and
electrical installation against the city’s code or that he reasonably failed to register as a
contractor with the city, or in the alternative, his convictions for performing electrical and
plumbing work against the city building code were not supported by the manifest weight
of the evidence.
Ide’s Arguments
{¶ 25} Ide argues he was prosecuted for not following the city’s protocol as to
building procedures, while the city admitted it did not allow him to pull permits for work
on his Maumee home. He claims he moved for acquittal on the basis that he cannot be
held accountable for violating the city’s building code because he is not the homeowner,
nor is he a licensed contractor.
{¶ 26} Ide contends the city relied on photographs from his Flickr account that
were of him, “or someone resembling him, performing work on the interior of the
(presumptive) [Maumee] home . . . as proof that he performed electrical and plumbing
work without a journeyman certification, and without a permit.” Ide again submits the
pictures from his Flickr account were not authenticated as to who took them, or when.
4
The proper standard of review for a Crim.R. 29 motion is set forth below.
9.
He also claims the identity of the person in some of the pictures is not clear. Ide asserts
the city proved that electrical work and plumbing was done, but not who did it.
{¶ 27} Ide argues it is significant that he testified he is not qualified to perform
electrical or plumbing work, so he did not perform it, but his two grown sons and
Bremer’s father helped with those tasks. Ide maintains “[t]his court should find that the
City of Maumee interprets its building code to mean that no one except the official tax
payer [sic] of the property is allowed to perform or even assist with home renovations,
even if they live in the home.” In addition, Ide submits there was no testimony from
Bremer as to who performed the plumbing and electrical work, or who she asked to help
her with that work. Ide claims that without testimony as to who actually performed the
work, the city did not meet the threshold of sufficient evidence to submit the matter to the
bench, or in the alternative, his conviction was not supported by the manifest weight of
the evidence.
The City’s Arguments
{¶ 28} The city notes Ide’s arguments are much the same as in the first assignment
of error. The city once more contends it offered testimony and exhibits which showed
significant work was performed at the Maumee home, and that testimony was never
challenged. The city also submits that Ide, as shown in his postings, knew he and Bremer
needed permits. The city again notes that Ide argues another person is the proper party,
which issue was not raised in the trial court. The city maintains that taking the evidence
in the light most favorable to it, the trial court properly denied Ide’s Crim.R. 29 motion.
10.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence Standard
{¶ 29} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.
It indicates clearly to the [trier of fact] that the party having the burden of proof will be
entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the
greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before
them. Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing
belief.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997), quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). The manifest weight of the evidence relates to persuasion[.]”
Eastley v. Volkman,
2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 19.
{¶ 30} To evaluate a manifest weight of the evidence claim, “we must review the
entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the
credibility of all the witnesses.” State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 328. Then, we
must decide if the trier of fact clearly lost its way when resolving evidentiary conflicts to
create a manifest miscarriage of justice so that a conviction must be reversed, and a new
trial ordered.
Id. The appellate court’s role in manifest weight review has been described
as that of a “thirteenth juror” who may disagree with how the factfinder resolved the
conflicting evidence. Tibbs v. Florida,
457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). The reversal of a
conviction on manifest weight grounds should occur only in the most “exceptional case
in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.”
Thompkins at 387.
11.
Sufficiency of the Evidence Standard
{¶ 31} A motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence. State v. Brinkley, 2005-Ohio-1507, ¶ 39. The denial of a motion for acquittal
under Crim.R. 29 “is governed by the same standard as the one for determining whether a
verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Tenace,
2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37.
{¶ 32} Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction is a question of
law. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence, “‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Jenks (1991),
61 Ohio
St.3d 259, . . . paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia (1979),
443
U.S. 307[.]” State v. Smith,
1997-Ohio-355. In making the determination, the appellate
court will not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. State v.
Walker,
55 Ohio St.2d 208, 212, (1978).
MMC
{¶ 33} The relevant code provisions state:
101.02 General Definitions
As used in the Codified Ordinances, the following definitions shall apply
except where a specific definition is set forth in a Maumee Code provision
or Ordinance:
...
12.
(j) “Owner”, when applied to real property means a person who has legal
title to the property as set forth in a deed, land contract or trust. (Emphasis
added.)
Maumee’s building code is found in part 13, which states in pertinent part:
Chapter 1301 - Permits and Certificates; Penalty
1301.09 Permit for Plumbing, Mechanical or Electrical Installations.
When a permit is specifically required by any provision of this Building
Code or by statute for an installation, extension, alteration, or repair of
plumbing, gas piping, electric wiring, or heating, no person, or owner of the
property shall install or allow the installation of any plumbing, gas piping,
electrical wiring or heating without a proper permit issued by the City of
Maumee or the State of Ohio; no person shall assist in the installation of
plumbing gas piping, electrical wiring or heating when a permit as
required has not been obtained; and/or use or permit the use of the
installation, equipment, or appliance to which such provision applies, until
the appropriate permit has been issued and the required inspection(s)
approved. (Emphasis added.)
...
1301.99 Penalty
(a) Except as provided in Section 1301.11, whoever violates any provision
of Part 13 of the Building Code or fails to comply therewith or with any of
the requirements thereof, or who erects or assists the person who erects,
constructs, alters or repairs, or has erected or assisted the person or persons
who erected, constructed, altered or repaired a building or structure, without
a properly issued permit or is in violation of a detailed statement or plan
submitted and approved thereunder, or of a permit or certificate issued
thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Each day
of said violation shall be considered a separate offense.
...
Chapter 1305 - Tradesmen and Contractors
1305.01 General Provisions.
(a) No person, firm or corporation shall render certain services to-wit:
electrical, plumbing, warm air heating and air conditioning within the City .
13.
. . unless all of the requests of this Code are met and unless he has obtained
a commercial certificate of shop registration as provided herein.
...
(c) No person shall install certain services, to wit: electrical, plumbing,
warm air heating and air conditioning within the City unless they have
obtained a certificate as a journeyman electrical, plumbing, warm air
heating and air conditioning installer.
...
(f) (3) As used in this Code, “contractor” means any person, firm or
corporation, whether acting as a general contractor or a subcontractor, who
engages in the business of erecting, constructing and repairing buildings,
fixtures, and other permanent improvements to land within this City.
“Contractor” specifically includes, but is not limited to, builders,
excavators, remodelers, carpenters, roofers, drywallers, wallpaperers,
landscapers, painters, basement waterproofers, and installers of fences,
windows, doors, siding, driveways, patios, swimming pools and other like
improvements.
...
1305.03 Certificate of Qualification.
It is the intent that this section of the code is meant solely to regulate the
qualifications of persons, firms or corporations involved in the building
construction industry. All experience, training and testing required in this
and other related sections must be related directly to building construction.
...
1305.11 Exemptions.
...
(b) The owner of a single or one family dwelling need not be licensed or
registered nor hold a certificate personally to perform work upon the
premises occupied or to be occupied by the owner thereof as such owner’s
established residence.
...
(d) Provided further, however, that all work shall be done in conformity
with the provisions of this chapter and no work shall be done unless all
14.
other permits, inspections and approvals required by this chapter are
secured[.]
Residential Deck Requirements Form
{¶ 34} This form sets forth, inter alia:
A permit is required for any deck that is above grade level. This includes
decks that have the bottom of the structure on the ground. Plans should
include two copies of the deck construction drawings and lot plans with the
deck drawn to scale and the distance to the property lines. To check the
required setbacks please call the Zoning Administrator[.]
When applying for a permit to construct a deck, there are a few items that
must be submitted for building and zoning compliance. These items need to
appear. on the drawings submitted with the application form for a permit.
They are related to requirements in the 2019 Residential Code of Ohio[.]
The information and details shown on the following sheets can be used as
part of your permit plans for your deck. They are available as a guide to
help you with detailing, and they can used partially or in full.
Analysis
Crim.R. 29 Motion for Acquittal
{¶ 35} Ide claims there was insufficient evidence of guilt presented that he failed
to register as a contractor and that he performed plumbing and electrical installation.
{¶ 36} At the outset, we note Ide asserts the evidence offered by the city was not
properly authenticated. We find Ide’s assertion without merit, on two bases. First, Ide
did not raise this issue in the trial court, nor did he object to the admission of the
evidence. Hence, we find Ide waived this issue. See Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d at syllabus.
Second, Ide did not cite to Ohio’s Rules of Evidence or any legal authority in support of
his assertion, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7) and Sixth Dist.Loc.R. 10(C).
15.
{¶ 37} Next, Ide argues that he fits the definition of a homeowner so he could pull
a permit for renovations at the Maumee home. Ide offers no authority in support of his
claim. We find Ide does not fit the definition of an owner of real estate, under MMC
101.02(j), since he does not have legal title to the Maumee home, as the undisputed
evidence is that he is not on the deed.
Failure to Register as a Contractor
{¶ 38} A review of the record, including the trial testimony and exhibits, and the
relevant law shows Ide testified he was not a contractor and was not in the business.
Contractor is defined in MMC 1305.01(f)(3) as “any person . . . who engages in the
business of erecting, constructing and repairing buildings, fixtures, and other permanent
improvements to land within this City.” Moreover, MMC 1305.03 provides “the intent
that this section . . . is meant solely to regulate the qualifications of persons, firms or
corporations involved in the building construction industry.” We find nothing in the
record which indicates that Ide was involved in the building construction industry or that
he falls under the MMC definition of contractor. Since Ide is not considered a contractor
under the MMC, viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the
city, we find the city failed to present sufficient evidence that Ide failed to register as a
contractor with the city. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Ide’s Crim.R. 29
motion for acquittal on this basis.
16.
Performed Plumbing and Electrical Work
{¶ 39} A review of the record, including the trial testimony and exhibits, and the
relevant law shows Ide testified at trial that he did not perform plumbing and electrical
work at the Maumee home. Exhibits offered at trial, however, depict Ide performing
electrical work and posts created by Ide stated that he and Bremer “have totally rewired
or entire home . . . We have totally replaced 100% of the plumbing.” In another post, Ide
stated “[s]ince 2017 we have been rebuilding our Maumee, Ohio home with . . . No
permits[.]” The testimony of Westcott at trial was that except for minor home repairs,
permits are needed for just about everything in Maumee. In addition, MMC 1305.01
provides that “[n]o person . . . shall render certain services to-wit: electrical, plumbing . .
.within the City . . . unless all of the requests of this Code are met and unless he has
obtained a commercial certificate of shop registration as provided herein.”
{¶ 40} Viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the city,
we find the city presented sufficient evidence that Ide worked on the plumbing and
electrical systems at the Maumee home, in violation of the city’s building code.
Accordingly, the trial court did not error in denying Ide’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal
on this basis.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
Deck Built Without a Permit
{¶ 41} Ide argues his conviction for failing to obtain a building permit for the deck
was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
17.
{¶ 42} The record reveals exhibits offered at trial which portray Ide working on
wooden boards and holding boards which resemble the boards on the floor of the porch.
In posts by Ide, he stated “[w]e are totally rebuilding the entire house. . . . New porches. .
. . All with no city of Maumee involvement of any kind. . . . Since 2017 we have been
rebuilding our Maumee, Ohio home with . . . No permits[.]” Westcott testified that other
than minor home repairs, permits are needed for just about everything.
{¶ 43} Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, weighing of all the
evidence, and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we find the trier of fact did not
lose its way nor create a miscarriage of justice in finding Ide constructed a deck on the
Maumee home without a proper permit.
Performed Plumbing and Electrical Work
{¶ 44} The record contains Ide’s trial testimony that he did not perform plumbing
and electrical work at the Maumee home. Yet, exhibits show Ide holding electrical
wiring in the Maumee house, and Ide’s posts stated that he and Bremer “have totally
rewired or entire home . . .We have totally replaced 100% of the plumbing. . . . Since
2017 we have been rebuilding our Maumee, Ohio home with . . . No permits[.]”
Westcott testified other than minor home repairs, permits are needed for just about
everything in Maumee.
{¶ 45} Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, weighing the
evidence, and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we find the trier of fact did not
18.
lose its way nor create a miscarriage of justice in finding Ide worked on the plumbing and
electrical systems at the Maumee home, in violation of the city’s building code.
Conclusion
{¶ 46} As to Ide’s first assignment of error, having found Ide’s conviction for
failing to obtain a building permit for the deck was supported by the manifest weight of
the evidence, we find Ide’s first assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 47} Regarding Ide’s second assignment of error, having found the city failed to
present sufficient evidence that Ide failed to register as a contractor, we find this portion
of the second assignment of error well-taken, and we vacate Ide’s conviction for failing
to register as a contractor. With respect to Ide performing plumbing and electrical work
in violation of the city’s building code, having found the city presented sufficient
evidence of such, and having found Ide’s conviction for performing electrical and
plumbing work against the city building code was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, we find this portion of the second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 48} On consideration whereof, the judgments of the Maumee Municipal Court
are affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. This matter is remanded with instructions for
the trial court to issue a judgment dismissing Ide’s conviction for failing to register as a
contractor in Maumee Municipal Court case No. 22CRB0738.
19.
{¶ 49} It is ordered that the parties split the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.
24.
Judgments affirmed, in part,
reversed, in part, and remanded.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
20.
