City of Warren v. ClayCity of Warren v. Clay
{¶ 2} Appellant raises four assignments of error for our review; in sum, appellant challenges the lower court's application of the statutory sentencing guidelines to his particular case. We will address all four of appellant's assignments of error simultaneously.
{¶ 3} Although his notice of appeal indicates appellant ordered a partial transcript from the court reporter, the record reflects, on appeal, that no transcript has been filed. Because appellant's appeal challenges his sentence, a transcript of the sentencing hearing is necessary. Further, appellant challenges the trial court's general construction of events as they pertain to his sentence and sets forth accusations regarding the trial court's impartiality. Thus, the trial transcript is also necessary for a thorough review of the appellant's contentions.
{¶ 4} An appellant is required to provide a transcript for appellate review. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980),
{¶ 5} This principle is embodied in App.R. 9(B), which states in relevant part:
{¶ 6} "At the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant, in writing, shall order from the reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of the parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record and file a copy of the order with the clerk. * * * If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to the findings or conclusion." App.R. 9(B); see, also, Streetsborov. Hughes (July 31, 1987), 11th Dist. No. 1741,
{¶ 7} Where portions of the transcript necessary for the resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, an appellate court has nothing to pass upon. As appellant cannot demonstrate those errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings. State v. Ridgway
(Feb. 1, 1999), 5th Dist. No. 1998CA00147,
{¶ 8} Appellant's four assignments of error are therefore overruled.
{¶ 9} For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Warren Municipal Court is hereby affirmed.
Ford, P.J., Christley, J., concur.