State v. Leifheit

<p>[Cite as State v. Leifheit, 2020-Ohio-5106.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-78 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2017-TRC-3984 : MICHAEL J. LEIFHEIT : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) : Defendant-Appellant : : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 30th day of October, 2020. ........... MATTHEW B. DIBARTOLA, Atty. Reg. No. 0088702, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Municipal Court, 50 East Columbia Street, Fourth Floor, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY D. SLYMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0010098, 211 Kenbrook Drive, Suite 5, Vandalia, Ohio 45377 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. WELBAUM, J. -2- {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Michael J. Leifheit, appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Municipal Court denying his motion to withdraw guilty plea. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Facts and Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} On May 12, 2017, Leifheit pled guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”) in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). After accepting Leifheit’s guilty plea, the trial court issued an entry granting Leifheit limited driving privileges from May 16, 2017 through July 23, 2017. The entry stated that Leifheit was only permitted to drive for work-related purposes, and that he could “operate ONLY his personal vehicle, as his CDL [commercial driver’s license] remains suspended.” {¶ 3} On June 20, 2017, the matter proceeded to a sentencing hearing. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Leifheit to pay a fine of $375 and court costs. The trial court also ordered Leifheit to serve 13 days in jail, with ten days suspended, and three days credited for Leifheit’s completing a three-day intervention program. The trial court also suspended Leifheit’s operator’s license for one year. {¶ 4} Two days after sentencing, the trial court issued a second entry granting Leifheit limited driving privileges from June 22, 2017 to October 16, 2017. Like the first entry, the second entry only permitted Leifheit to drive for work-related purposes. The second entry, however, did not make any reference to Leifheit’s CDL suspension. {¶ 5} Approximately two years later, on May 31, 2019, Leifheit filed a letter he wrote to the trial court regarding his CDL. In the letter, Leifheit advised the trial court that he had recently attempted to renew his CDL at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”), -3- but was prohibited from doing so due to his OVI conviction. Because a CDL was necessary for his employment, Leifheit requested the trial court to “drop [his OVI] to a lesser charge” so that he could renew his CDL. Letter (May 31, 2019). Shortly thereafter, on June 3, 2019, Leifheit filed a second letter in which he asked the trial court to issue an order to renew his CDL. {¶ 6} The trial court treated Leifheit’s letters as a motion to renew his operator’s license and CDL. Following a hearing on the matter, on June 24, 2019, the trial ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4802013/state-v-leifheit/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid State v. Leifheit in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State v. Leifheit. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State v. Leifheit is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.