Eble v. Emery, 06ap-1007 (9-20-2007)Eble v. Emery, 06ap-1007 (9-20-2007)
{¶ 2} The matter was set for hearing before the trial court, but only Emery appeared pro se with a witness. The trial court's July 31, 2006 decision and entry notes *2
that "Petitioner, who was duly served, failed to appear for the hearing." After receiving the evidence, the trial court entered an order that the "Civil Protection Order is modified to reflеct an end date of July 27, 2006." However, this judgment and entry was vacated by a later judgment entry filed on August 3, 2006, stating that, "since the July 26, 2006 hearing, it has come to the Court's attention that Petitioner was never properly served with the June 15, 2006 Motion." Accordingly, the trial court ordered the July 31, 2006 decision and entry vacated and set the matter "for a full hearing on September 5, 2006 at 9:00 a.m." There is a another decision and entry of the trial court filed on September 6, 2006, stating that the motion to mоdify the civil protection order was heard on September 5, 2006, and the trial court ordered that appellant's civil protection order petition be dismissed for the reasons that: "Respondent presented (uncontroverted) evidence to the Court of more than 100 telephone calls Petitioner placed to Respondent on 2 days. As Petitioner clearly does not respect the CPO or fear threat of harm from Respondent and hаs no intention of availing himself of the protections afforded by ORC
{¶ 3} It is from this judgment that appellant appeals and raises two assignments of error, as follows:
*3I. The Court's dismissal of the Civil Protection Order withоut a full evidentiary hearing transcribed by a court stenographer violated
R.C. 3131.31 and appellant's right to procedural due process.II. The Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's Civil Protection Order. The dismissal was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 4} The first assignment of error raises the reason why this appeal is not properly before the court because аppellant did not comply with the appellate rules.
{¶ 5} Even more important, appellаnt has failed to avail himself of the procedures provided by the appellate rules in a case where a transcript of proceedings recorded by a court reporter is not available.
{¶ 6} Furthermore, in light of appellаnt's failure to properly bring these issues before the court either by transcript of proceedings or an
{¶ 7} Even assuming that appellant had originally obtainеd a valid civil protection order, there still is no merit to his contention that the trial court erred in terminating the previously-issued civil protection ordеr and in dismissing appellant's petition. In addition, it appears that the original CPO may have expired during the pendency of this appeal. The first assignment оf error is not well-taken.
{¶ 8} By his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court dismissal of the previously-issued civil protection order was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 9} For the same reasons stated above with respect to the first assignment of error, failure of appellant to present a proper record to this court in order to review the evidentiary finding, this assignment of error cannot be considerеd. Without a transcript of proceedings or a
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, both of appellant's assignments of error are overrulеd, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.