Crawford v. CrawfordCrawford v. Crawford
O P I N I O N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Cоmmon Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2009DIV0609
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 26, 2010
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JODI DEES 3 North Main Street #405 Mansfield, Ohio 44902
For Defendant-Appellant
BRIAN A. CRAWFORD, PRO SE Inmate #540-154 Marion Correctional Institution P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43301-0057
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Briаn A. Crawford (“Husband“) appeals the March 2, 2010 Judgment Entry entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which overruled his objections to the magistrate‘s January 29, 2010 decision and adopted said decision as its own. Plaintiff-appellee is Stacy L. Crawfоrd (“Wife“).1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} Husband and Wife were married on December 31, 1998, in Mansfield, Ohio. Three children were born as issue of said union and all three are still minors. On May 8, 2009, Wife filed a Complaint for Divorce in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Husband was, and remains, incarcеrated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio, serving a forty year sentence after being convicted of 8 сounts of rape, 15 counts of sexual battery, and 20 counts of gross sexual imposition, involving his step-daughters. Husband responded to Wife‘s Comрlaint by filing a
{¶3} The trial court issued temporary orders on June 24, 2009. Pursuant thereto, Husband was not provided with any parenting time due to his incarceration. The matter came on for final hearing before the magistrate on January 22, 2010. Husband was not present and not represented by counsel. Via Magistrate‘s Decision filed January 29, 2010, the magistrate recommended Wife be granted a divorce from Husband on the ground Husband was incarcerated in a State correctional institution at the time of the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. The magistrate further recommended
{¶4} It is from this judgment entry husband appeals, raising the following assignments of error:
{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO OHIO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6).
{¶6} “II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR AS WELL AS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ORDER PARENTING TIME BETWEEN APPELLANT AND HIS CHILDREN AS WELL THE METHOD BY WHICH APPELLANT PURPORTEDLY HAS ACCESS TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS CHILDREN.
{¶7} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND VIOLATED APPELLANT‘S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHEN
{¶8} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN THE ORDERING OF PROPERTY.”
I
{¶9} In his first аssignment of error, Husband asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. Specifically, Husband submits Wife‘s allegation he “has been guilty of conduct which constitutes grounds for divorce as set forth in O.R.C. § 3105.01” was merely a legal conclusion and not supported by the facts set forth in the Complaint.
{¶10} The standard of review on a
{¶11}
{¶12} When comparing Wife‘s pleading to Form 20, we find it suffices to set forth a claim for relief. Although Wife did not specify which one(s) of the statutory grounds for relief applied, we find reference to
{¶13} Husband‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
II, IV
{¶14} Before addressing the merits of Husband‘s second and fourth assignments, we must discuss the state of the record before this Court.
{¶15} As set forth in the Statement of the Case and Facts, supra, Husband failed to provide the trial court with a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate. The trial court, in its March 2, 2010 Judgment Entry, noted Husband‘s failure to submit the
{¶16} On review, we find the rationale often relied upon in Knapp v. Edwards Labs. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384, applies in the within case. The duty to provide the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate fell upon Husband as hе had the burden of showing error by reference to matters in the record. See State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355. “When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned еrrors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court‘s proceedings, and affirm.” State v. Neal, December 19, 2005, Delaware App. No.2005CAA02006. We believe this same rаtional applies when a trial court reviews a magistrate‘s decision where the objector fails to produce the entirе transcript for the trial court.
{¶17} Accordingly, we find no error or abuse of discretion relative to the trial court‘s decisions regarding рarenting and property division.
{¶18} Husband‘s second and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
III
{¶19} In his third assignment of error, Husband argues the trial cоurt abused its discretion and violated his constitutional right to due process in denying his request to be present at the final hearing before the magistrate.
{¶21} A review of the record does not establish the trial court acted in an improper manner or denied Husband his right to due process.
{¶22} Husband‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶23} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Farmer, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment оf the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER