2023 Ohio 3214
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On Sept. 17, 2022 Colleen M. Welling was charged with Driving Under Suspension (R.C. 4510.11(A), first-degree misdemeanor) and Driving in Marked Lanes (minor misdemeanor); the marked-lanes count was later dismissed.
- A jury trial was held Feb. 10, 2023; the jury convicted Welling of Driving Under Suspension. The court fined her $100 and assessed court costs.
- Welling appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) she was traveling in interstate commerce when charged, and (2) the grand jury erred in finding her guilty of driving without a license. Her brief misstated the convicted statute (she was convicted under R.C. 4510.11(A), not R.C. 4510.12).
- Welling’s appellate brief failed to identify governing standards of review or cite supporting legal authority, contrary to App.R. 16(A).
- Welling did not file a trial transcript in the record on appeal; she requested recordings from the trial court but did not ensure a transcript was included.
- The Third District declined to address the substantive arguments and affirmed the conviction because Welling failed to properly brief the issues and failed to provide the transcript required to demonstrate trial error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Welling was traveling in interstate commerce when charged | State: Evidence showed Welling was driving in Ohio without a valid license | Welling: Claimed she was in interstate commerce at the time | Court: Not reached on merits; overruled assignment for procedural defects; conviction affirmed |
| 2. Whether the grand jury erred in finding her guilty of driving without a license | State: Charged and convicted under suspension statute; prosecution moved to dismiss marked-lanes count | Welling: Asserted grand jury error and misidentified statutory offense | Court: Not reached on merits; overruled assignment for failure to brief and absent transcript; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Raber, 189 Ohio App.3d 396 (9th Dist. 2010) (appellant’s arguments are not the court’s duty to search out when not properly presented)
- Meerhoff v. Huntington Mtge. Co., 103 Ohio App.3d 164 (3d Dist. 1995) (appellate briefs must present arguments and authority)
- City of Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist. 1987) (when trial transcript portions are omitted, appellate court must presume regularity and affirm)